Cited by 177Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsGenomics and Rare Diseases

Discovery and verification of functional single nucleotide polymorphisms in regulatory genomic regions: Current and developing technologies

Open access
CHORLEY, B, WANG, X, CAMPBELL, M, PITTMAN, G, NOUREDDINE, M, BELL, D·2008·Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research

Abstract

The most common form of genetic variation, single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs, can affect the way an individual responds to the environment and modify disease risk. Although most of the millions of SNPs have little or no effect on gene regulation and protein activity, there are many circumstances where base changes can have deleterious effects. Non-synonymous SNPs that result in amino acid changes in proteins have been studied because of their obvious impact on protein activity. It is well known that SNPs within regulatory regions of the genome can result in disregulation of gene transcription. However, the impact of SNPs located in putative regulatory regions, or rSNPs, is harder to predict for two primary reasons. First, the mechanistic roles of non-coding genomic sequence remain poorly defined. Second, experimental validation of the functional consequences of rSNPs is often slow and laborious. In this review, we summarize traditional and novel methodologies for candidate rSNPs selection, in particular in silico techniques that aid in candidate rSNP selection. Additionally we will discuss molecular biological techniques that assess the impact of rSNPs on binding of regulatory machinery, as well as functional consequences on transcription. Standard techniques such as EMSA and luciferase reporter constructs are still widely used to assess effects of rSNPs on binding and gene transcription; however, these protocols are often bottlenecks in the discovery process. Therefore, we highlight novel and developing high-throughput protocols that promise to aid in shortening the process of rSNP validation. Given the large amount of genomic information generated from a multitude of re-sequencing and genome-wide SNP array efforts, future focus should be to develop validation techniques that will allow greater understanding of the impact these polymorphisms have on human health and disease.

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.mrrev.2008.05.001

Cites

109 of 109 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?

  • We still lack efficient procedures for identifying enhancers and other regulatory regions that polymorphisms could disrupt.

    “we still lack efficient procedures for identifying enhancers and other regulatory regions that polymorphisms could disrupt38.”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Few GWAS-significant associations have been confirmed as the true risk variant through molecular, biochemical, or biophysical work.

    “Very few of the thousands of GWAS significant associations have been shown using molecular genetics, biochemistry or biophysics to be the actual risk variant38, 109.”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [38]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [47]Forster VT. Zwischenmoleculare Energiewanderung und Fluorescenz. Annals of Physics. 1948;2:57–75. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CHORLEY, B., WANG, X., CAMPBELL, M., PITTMAN, G., NOUREDDINE, M., & BELL, D.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
BELL, D
Venue
Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
659
Issue
1-2
Pages
147-157
ISSN
1383-5742 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014783044
Cited by
177
References
109
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 19
FWCI
10.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z01-ES100475)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01ES100475)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
single nucleotide polymorphisms, regulatory single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression regulation, transcriptional regulation, in silico prediction, transcription factor binding, electrophoretic mobility shift assay, luciferase reporter assay, disease risk
MeSH terms
Gene Expression Regulation, Genotype, Humans, Phenotype, Regulatory Sequences, Nucleic Acid, Computational Biology, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genomic Instability, Toxicogenetics

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