Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34461822›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2021

A validated generally applicable approach using the systematic assessment of disease modules by GWAS reveals a multi-omic module strongly associated with risk factors in multiple sclerosis.

Tejaswi V S Badam, Hendrik A de Weerd, David Martínez-Enguita, Tomas Olsson, Lars Alfredsson, Ingrid Kockum, Maja Jagodic, Zelmina Lubovac-Pilav, Mika Gustafsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tejaswi V S Badam *School of Bioscience, Systems Biology Research Center, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden.
Hendrik A de Weerd *School of Bioscience, Systems Biology Research Center, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden.
David Martínez-EnguitaBioinformatics, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Linköping university, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6363-6298
Tomas OlssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars AlfredssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ingrid KockumDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Maja JagodicDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Zelmina Lubovac-Pilav *School of Bioscience, Systems Biology Research Center, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden.
Mika Gustafsson *Bioinformatics, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Linköping university, Linköping, Sweden. mika.gustafsson@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-4063
Karolinska University Hospital · SELinköping University · SEUniversity of Skövde · SE

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 818170Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse 2019.0089Stiftelsen för Kunskaps- och Kompetensutveckling 20170298Stiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning SB16-0095Vetenskapsrådet 2015-03807Vetenskapsrådet 2018-02638
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere exist few, if any, practical guidelines for predictive and falsifiable multi-omic data integration that systematically integrate existing knowledge. Disease modules are popular concepts for interpreting genome-wide studies in medicine but have so far not been systematically evaluated and may lead to corroborating multi-omic modules.

resultWe assessed eight module identification methods in 57 previously published expression and methylation studies of 19 diseases using GWAS enrichment analysis. Next, we applied the same strategy for multi-omic integration of 20 datasets of multiple sclerosis (MS), and further validated the resulting module using both GWAS and risk-factor-associated genes from several independent cohorts. Our benchmark of modules showed that in immune-associated diseases modules inferred from clique-based methods were the most enriched for GWAS genes. The multi-omic case study using MS data revealed the robust identification of a module of 220 genes. Strikingly, most genes of the module were differentially methylated upon the action of one or several environmental risk factors in MS (n = 217, P = 10

conclusionsWe believe our analysis provides a workflow for selecting modules and our benchmark study may help further improvement of disease module methods. Moreover, we also stress that our methodology is generally applicable for combining and assessing the performance of multi-omic approaches for complex diseases.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyMultiple SclerosisEpigenomicsGene Regulatory NetworksHumansRisk FactorsBenchmarkData integrationDisease modulesGenome-wide association analysisMethylomicsMulti-omicsMultiple sclerosisNetwork analysisNetwork modulesProtein network analysisRisk factorsTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID34461822
PMCPMC8404328
OpenAlexW3198808983

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.