ArticleGenetics in medicine open2024
Integrative computational analyses implicate regulatory genomic elements contributing to spina bifida.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Spina bifida (SB) arises from complex genetic interactions that converge to interfere with neural tube closure. Understanding the precise patterns conferring SB risk requires a deep exploration of the genomic networks and molecular pathways that govern neurulation. This study aims to delineate genome-wide regulatory signatures underlying SB pathophysiology. Methods: An untargeted, genome-wide approach was used to interrogate regulatory regions for rare single-nucleotide and copy-number variants (rSNVs and rCNVs, respectively) predicted to affect gene expression, comparing results from SB patients with healthy controls. Qualifying variants were subjected to a deep learning prioritization framework to identify the most functionally relevant variants, as well as the likely target genes affected by these rare regulatory variants. Results: This ensemble of computational tools identified rSNVs in specific transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) that distinguish SB cases from controls. rSNV enrichment was found in specific TFBSs, especially CCCTC-binding factor binding sites. These TFBSs were subjected to a deep learning prioritization framework to identify the most functionally relevant variants, as well as the likely target genes affected by these rSNVs. The functional pathways or modules implicated by these regulated genes serve protein transport, cilia assembly, and central nervous system development. Moreover, the detected rare copy-number variants in SB cases are positioned to disrupt gene regulatory networks and alter 3-dimensional genomic architectures, including brain-specific enhancers and topologically associated domain boundaries of relevant cell types. Conclusion: Our study provides a resource for identifying and interpreting genomic regulatory DNA variant contributions to human SB genetic predisposition.
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.