2018
DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0159-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High-throughput identification of noncoding functional SNPs via type IIS enzyme restriction

Abstract: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many disease-associated noncoding variants, but cannot distinguish functional single-nucleotide polymorphisms (fSNPs) from others that reside incidentally within risk loci. To address this challenge, we developed an unbiased high-throughput screen that employs type IIS enzymatic restriction to identify fSNPs that allelically modulate the binding of regulatory proteins. We coupled this approach, termed SNP-seq, with flanking restriction enhanced pulldown (F… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
68
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
(53 reference statements)
1
68
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regulatory variants commonly alter gene expression by modulating the binding of transcription factors. Identification of these transcription factors will link the regulation of IL1RN to cellular pathways and thereby suggest new targets for intervention . How is systemic JIA that evolves in children with high levels of IL‐1Ra different demographically, clinically, and pathophysiologically from systemic JIA that does not?…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regulatory variants commonly alter gene expression by modulating the binding of transcription factors. Identification of these transcription factors will link the regulation of IL1RN to cellular pathways and thereby suggest new targets for intervention . How is systemic JIA that evolves in children with high levels of IL‐1Ra different demographically, clinically, and pathophysiologically from systemic JIA that does not?…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We first compared experimentally validated regulatory SNPs in mononuclear cells ( 35 ) and detected substantially more experimentally validated SNPs by our method compared with all 5 methods ( Figure 2A ). Consistent results were found in 2 nonimmune cell types (K562, HepG2) ( 36 ), in which our method had substantially more experimentally validated regulatory SNPs compared with 3 other methods (FIRE, GWAS4D, and IW-Scoring) ( Supplemental Figure 4 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(a) Description of top-scored SNPs sets from each method for functional comparing in b-f, which are marked by different colors (bottom). (b) Comparison of experimentally validated functional SNPs between our method and other five methods from a high-throughput screen assay in mononuclear cells [26]. (c-f) Comparison of percentage of annotated SNPs within different regulatory evidence between our method and other five methods, including (c) potential regulatory SNPs with predicted target gene by combining cis-QTL and chromatin interaction analysis, (d) potential functional SNPs with significant molecular QTL (bQTL, hQTL, dsQTL or caQTL) association, (e) casual autoimmune associated SNPs identified by PICS approach [18], and (f) potential regulatory SNPs within eRNA detected from IBD patients [28].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We firstly compared experimentally validated regulatory SNPs in mononuclear cells [26], and detected substantially more validated SNPs by our method compared with either FIRE, GWAS4D or IW-Scoring (Figure 3b). We also detected much more validated SNPs compared with 3DSNP under the first two functionality support and comparable validated SNPs compared with RegulomeDB (Figure 3b).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation