Systematic identification of trans eQTLs as putative drivers of known disease associations
Summary (1 min read)
Introduction
- DeepSAGE RNA sequencing showed that rs4917014 strongly alters the 3′ UTR levels of IKZF1 in cis, and chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing analysis of the trans-regulated genes implicated IKZF1 as the causal gene.
- This was the case for rs4917014, for which the SLE risk allele (rs4917014[T]; showing genome-wide significance in Asian populations and nominal significance in European populations1,24) not only increased expression of five different IFN-α response genes (HERC5, IFI6, IFIT1, MX1 and TNFRSF21; Fig. 2) but also decreased expression of three different probes in CLEC10A.
METhoDS
- Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of the paper.
- The authors have made a browser available for all significant trans eQTLs and cis eQTLs at http://www.genenetwork.nl/ bloodeqtlbrowser.
- This browser also provides all trans eQTLs that the authors detected at a somewhat less stringent FDR of 0.5 to enable more in-depth post hoc analyses.
- Any Supplementary Information and Source Data files are available in the online version of the paper, also known as Note.
CoMPETING FINANCIAL INTERESTS
- The authors declare no competing financial interests.
- Interferon-inducible gene expression signature in peripheral blood cells of patients with severe lupus.
- 24Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
- Furthermore, to address issues with respect to computational time and multiple testing, the authors confined their trans-eQTL analysis to those SNPs present in the Catalog of Published GWAS (see URLs; accessed 16 July 2011).
- Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits.
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
4,418 citations
3,472 citations
3,289 citations
2,721 citations
2,257 citations
References
13,548 citations
7,538 citations
5,926 citations
5,607 citations
4,041 citations
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (15)
Q2. How many false positives were removed from the eqtls?
SNP-probe combinations where at least 15 bp of the probe mapped within this 5-Mb window were deemed false positives and were removed from further analysis.
Q3. How did the authors test the cis-eqtl effects?
The authors then corrected for multiple testing by setting the FDR at 0.05, testing each P value in the real data against a null distribution created from the permuted data sets50 (Supplementary Note).
Q4. Why did the authors choose to include probes that were present on the HT12v3 platform?
Because most cohorts had generated gene expression data using the HT12v3 platform, the authors chose to only include probes that were present on this platform.
Q5. How did the authors determine the significance of these associations?
The authors established the significance of these associations by controlling the FDR, testing each association against a null distribution created by repeating the analysis 100 times (permuting the sample labels for each iteration50).
Q6. How many eqtls were detected in each cohort?
Replication of the trans-eQTL results was carried out in 5 independent data sets from 4 cohorts, including data obtained from LCLs (HapMap 3, n = 608)24, B cells and monocytes (Oxford, n = 282 and 283, respectively)9 and whole peripheral blood (KORA F4, n = 740 and BSGS, n = 862)22,23.
Q7. How many enhancers were examined in the 1000 Genomes Project?
The authors examined enhancer enrichment in nine different cell types using HaploReg, averaging enhancer enrichment over the ten permutations.
Q8. How did the authors ensure that none of the SNPs in the null distribution were affecting?
The authors also ensured that none of the SNPs in the null distribution were affecting genes in trans or were linked to those SNPs (r2 < 0.2 in 1000 Genomes Project data).
Q9. How did the authors map the trans-eQTL probe sequences?
For this analysis, the authors tried to map the trans-eQTL probe sequences, using very permissive settings, within a 5-Mb window centered on the trans-eQTL SNP.
Q10. How did the cohorts perform the analysis?
All cohorts applied the same methodology as used in the discovery phase to normalize gene expression data, check for sample mix-ups and perform trans-eQTL mapping, including ten permutations to establish the FDR threshold at 0.05.
Q11. What did the authors do to determine the effect of eQTL on the trait?
The authors determined which unlinked trait-associated SNPs showed eQTL effects on exactly the same gene: for each trait, the authors analyzed the SNPs that are known to be associated with the trait and assessed whether any unlinked SNP pair (r2 < 0.2; distance between SNPs of >5 Mb) showed a cisand/or trans-eQTL effect on exactly the same gene, as previously described5.
Q12. Did the authors correct the expression data for the principal component?
If the authors found an effect on the principal component, the authors did not correct the expression data for this component to ensure that the authors would not unintentionally remove genetic effects from the expression data.
Q13. How many times did the authors permute the sample identifiers?
To generate a realistic null distribution, the authors permuted the sample identifiers of the expression data and repeated this analysis ten times (Supplementary Fig. 18).
Q14. What were the results of the analysis?
The authors limited these analyses to those trans-eQTL SNPs that were previously shown to be associated with complex traits at genome-wide significance (trait-associated SNPs; reported P < 5 × 10−8).
Q15. How did the authors remove the principal components from the gene expression data?
Principal components that did not show significance at the FDR threshold of 0.0 were removed from the gene expression data by linear regression.