Cited by 716Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Colocalization of GWAS and eQTL Signals Detects Target Genes

Open access
Hormozdiari, Farhad, van de Bunt, Martijn, Segrè, Ayellet V., Li, Xiao, Joo, Jong Wha J., Bilow, Michael, Sul, Jae Hoon, Sankararaman, Sriram +2 more·2016·The American Journal of Human Genetics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The vast majority of genome-wide association study (GWAS) risk loci fall in non-coding regions of the genome. One possible hypothesis is that these GWAS risk loci alter the individual's disease risk through their effect on gene expression in different tissues. In order to understand the mechanisms driving a GWAS risk locus, it is helpful to determine which gene is affected in specific tissue types. For example, the relevant gene and tissue could play a role in the disease mechanism if the same variant responsible for a GWAS locus also affects gene expression. Identifying whether or not the same variant is causal in both GWASs and expression quantitative trail locus (eQTL) studies is challenging because of the uncertainty induced by linkage disequilibrium and the fact that some loci harbor multiple causal variants. However, current methods that address this problem assume that each locus contains a single causal variant. In this paper, we present eCAVIAR, a probabilistic method that has several key advantages over existing methods. First, our method can account for more than one causal variant in any given locus. Second, it can leverage summary statistics without accessing the individual genotype data. We use both simulated and real datasets to demonstrate the utility of our method. Using publicly available eQTL data on 45 different tissues, we demonstrate that eCAVIAR can prioritize likely relevant tissues and target genes for a set of glucose- and insulin-related trait loci.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.10.003

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Modern human genetics methods, such as genetic colocalization and Mendelian randomization, can be used to test causality in ageing clock models.

    “Modern human genetics methods, such as genetic colocalization163 and Mendelian randomization164, can also be used to test causality in ageing clock models.”

    From Measuring biological age using omics data (2022) · cites this paper as [163]

  • One colocalization method frames shared causality as the null hypothesis and rejection of this would indicate violation of instrumental variable condition 2.

    “One colocalization method originally proposed by Plagnol et al 112 frames shared causality as the null hypothesis and rejection of this would indicate violation of IV condition 2, i.e. that there are no common causes of the instrument and the outcome.112–114”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [114]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hormozdiari, F., van de Bunt, M., Segrè, A. V., Li, X., Joo, J. W. J., Bilow, M., Sul, J. H., Sankararaman, S., Pasaniuc, B., & Eskin, E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Eskin, Eleazar
Venue
The American Journal of Human Genetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
99
Issue
6
Pages
1245-1260
ISSN
0002-9297 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2555614465
Cited by
697
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 90 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 1
FWCI
34.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (K25-HL080079, P01-HL28481, P01-HL30568, R01 -ES022282, R01-ES021801, R01-GM083198, R01-MH101782, U01-DA024417, U54EB020403)
  • Broad Institute (R00-GM 111744-03)
  • Novo Nordisk (HHSN268201000029C)
  • National Science Foundation (0513612, 0729049, 0731455, 0916676, 1065276, 1302448, 1320589, 1331176)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
expression quantitative trait loci, GWAS risk loci, colocalization, causal variants, linkage disequilibrium, tissue-specific gene expression, target gene identification, summary statistics, non-coding variants
MeSH terms
Gene Expression Regulation, Genotype, Glucose, Humans, Insulin, Models, Genetic, Organ Specificity, Probability, Models, Statistical, Linkage Disequilibrium, Sample Size, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Quantitative Trait Loci, Genome-Wide Association Study, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review