ArticleHGG advances2024
Disease-specific prioritization of non-coding GWAS variants based on chromatin accessibility.
Article in HGG advances, 2024. 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.
- Progress, clinical application and challenges of non-invasive prenatal testing for monogenic diseases.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- "Frustratingly easy" domain adaptation for cross-species transcription factor binding prediction.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Update on the genetics of allergic diseases.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Review
- Non-coding variation in dementias: mechanisms, insights, and challenges.NPJ dementia · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Non-protein-coding genetic variants are a major driver of the genetic risk for human disease; however, identifying which non-coding variants contribute to diseases and their mechanisms remains challenging. In silico variant prioritization methods quantify a variant's severity, but for most methods, the specific phenotype and disease context of the prediction remain poorly defined. For example, many commonly used methods provide a single, organism-wide score for each variant, while other methods summarize a variant's impact in certain tissues and/or cell types. Here, we propose a complementary disease-specific variant prioritization scheme, which is motivated by the observation that variants contributing to disease often operate through specific biological mechanisms. We combine tissue/cell-type-specific variant scores (e.g., GenoSkyline, FitCons2, DNA accessibility) into disease-specific scores with a logistic regression approach and apply it to ∼25,000 non-coding variants spanning 111 diseases. We show that this disease-specific aggregation significantly improves the association of common non-coding genetic variants with disease (average precision: 0.151, baseline = 0.09), compared with organism-wide scores (GenoCanyon, LINSIGHT, GWAVA, Eigen, CADD; average precision: 0.129, baseline = 0.09). Further on, disease similarities based on data-driven aggregation weights highlight meaningful disease groups, and it provides information about tissues and cell types that drive these similarities. We also show that so-learned similarities are complementary to genetic similarities as quantified by genetic correlation. Overall, our approach demonstrates the strengths of disease-specific variant prioritization, leads to improvement in non-coding variant prioritization, and enables interpretable models that link variants to disease via specific tissues and/or cell types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.