Background: Non-coding genetic variants that influence gene transcription in pancreatic islets play a major role in the susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (T2D), and likely also contribute to type 1... Show moreBackground: Non-coding genetic variants that influence gene transcription in pancreatic islets play a major role in the susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (T2D), and likely also contribute to type 1 diabetes (T1D) risk. For many loci, however, the mechanisms through which non-coding variants influence diabetes susceptibility are unknown. Results: We examine splicing QTLs (sQTLs) in pancreatic islets from 399 human donors and observe that common genetic variation has a widespread influence on the splicing of genes with established roles in islet biology and diabetes. In parallel, we profile expression QTLs (eQTLs) and use transcriptome-wide association as well as genetic co-localization studies to assign islet sQTLs or eQTLs to T2D and T1D susceptibility signals, many of which lack candidate effector genes. This analysis reveals biologically plausible mechanisms, including the association of T2D with an sQTL that creates a nonsense isoform in ERO1B, a regulator of ER-stress and proinsulin biosynthesis. The expanded list of T2D risk effector genes reveals overrepresented pathways, including regulators of G-protein-mediated cAMP production. The analysis of sQTLs also reveals candidate effector genes for T1D susceptibility such as DCLRE1B, a senescence regulator, and lncRNA MEG3. Conclusions: These data expose widespread effects of common genetic variants on RNA splicing in pancreatic islets. The results support a role for splicing variation in diabetes susceptibility, and offer a new set of genetic targets with potential therapeutic benefit. Show less
Previous transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), but... Show morePrevious transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype-specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta-analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER-). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER- subtypes, using a case-only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER- breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS-significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast-cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS-significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER- breast cancer. Show less
Epidemiologic studies have reported inconsistent results regarding an association between Parkinson disease (PD) and cutaneous melanoma (melanoma). Identifying shared genetic architecture between... Show moreEpidemiologic studies have reported inconsistent results regarding an association between Parkinson disease (PD) and cutaneous melanoma (melanoma). Identifying shared genetic architecture between these diseases can support epidemiologic findings and identify common risk genes and biological pathways. Here, we apply polygenic, linkage disequilibrium-informed methods to the largest available case-control, genome-wide association study summary statistic data for melanoma and PD. We identify positive and significant genetic correlation (correlation: 0.17, 95% CI 0.10-0.24; P = 4.09 x 10(-06)) between melanoma and PD. We further demonstrate melanoma and PD-inferred gene expression to overlap across tissues (correlation: 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22; P = 7.87 x 10(-04)) and highlight seven genes including PIEZO1, TRAPPC2L, and SOX6 as potential mediators of the genetic correlation between melanoma and PD. These findings demonstrate specific, shared genetic architecture between PD and melanoma that manifests at the level of gene expression. Show less
Rooij, J. van; Mandaviya, P.R.; Claringbould, A.; Felix, J.F.; Dongen, J. van; Jansen, R.; ... ; BIOS Consortium 2019
BackgroundA large number of analysis strategies are available for DNA methylation (DNAm) array and RNA-seq datasets, but it is unclear which strategies are best to use. We compare commonly used... Show moreBackgroundA large number of analysis strategies are available for DNA methylation (DNAm) array and RNA-seq datasets, but it is unclear which strategies are best to use. We compare commonly used strategies and report how they influence results in large cohort studies.ResultsWe tested the associations of DNAm and RNA expression with age, BMI, and smoking in four different cohorts (n =similar to 2900). By comparing strategies against the base model on the number and percentage of replicated CpGs for DNAm analyses or genes for RNA-seq analyses in a leave-one-out cohort replication approach, we find the choice of the normalization method and statistical test does not strongly influence the results for DNAm array data. However, adjusting for cell counts or hidden confounders substantially decreases the number of replicated CpGs for age and increases the number of replicated CpGs for BMI and smoking. For RNA-seq data, the choice of the normalization method, gene expression inclusion threshold, and statistical test does not strongly influence the results. Including five principal components or excluding correction of technical covariates or cell counts decreases the number of replicated genes.ConclusionsResults were not influenced by the normalization method or statistical test. However, the correction method for cell counts, technical covariates, principal components, and/or hidden confounders does influence the results. Show less
