↓ Skip to main content

Epigenetic Combinatorial Patterns Predict Disease Variants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Epigenetic Combinatorial Patterns Predict Disease Variants
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2017.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yu Zhang

Abstract

Most genetic variants identified in genome-wide association studies are noncoding and are likely tagging nearby causal variants. It is a challenging task to pinpoint the precise locations of disease-causal variants and understand their functions in disease. A promising approach to improve fine mapping is to integrate the functional data currently available on hundreds of human tissues and cell types. Although there are several methods that use functional data to prioritize disease variants, they mainly use linear models, or equivalent naive likelihood-based models for prediction. Here, we investigate whether study of the combinatorial patterns of functional data across cell types can improve prediction accuracy for disease variants. Using functional annotation in 127 human cell types, we first introduce a Bayesian method to identify recurring cell-type-specificity partitions on the scale of the genome. We show that our de novo identification of epigenome partition patterns agrees well with known cell-type origins and that the associated functional elements are strongly enriched in disease variants. Using epigenetic cell-type specificity in addition to enrichment of functional elements, we further demonstrate that the power to predict disease variants can be greatly improved over that achievable with linear models. Our approach thus provides a new way to prioritize disease functional variants for testing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 11%
Unknown 8 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 11%
Professor 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,552,700
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,103
of 12,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,115
of 316,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#44
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,014 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.