Evidence mapPaperPMID 40424384Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2025

Variant-specific priors clarify colocalisation analysis.

Jeffrey M Pullin, Chris Wallace

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Jeffrey M PullinMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3651-5471
Chris WallaceMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9755-1703

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Linking GWAS variants to their causal gene and context remains an ongoing challenge. A widely used method for performing this analysis is the coloc package for statistical colocalisation analysis, which can be used to link GWAS and eQTL associations. Currently, coloc assumes that all variants in a region are equally likely to be causal, despite the success of fine-mapping methods that use additional information to adjust their prior probabilities. In this paper we propose and implement an approach for specifying variant-specific prior probabilities in the coloc method. We describe and compare six source of information for specifying prior probabilities: non-coding constraint, enhancer-gene link scores, the output of the PolyFun method and three estimates of eQTL-TSS distance densities. Using simulations and analysis of ground-truth pQTL-eQTL colocalisations we show that variant-specific priors, particularly the eQTL-TSS distance density priors, can improve colocalisation performance. Furthermore, across GWAS-eQTL colocalisations variant-specific priors changed colocalisation significance in up to 14.1% of colocalisations, at some loci revealing the likely causal gene.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyQuantitative Trait LociChromosome MappingComputer SimulationHumansModels, GeneticPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSoftware

Identifiers

PMID40424384
PMCPMC12140431

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.