CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 157

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sex differences in genetic architecture in the UK Biobank

Bernabeu, Elena, Canela-Xandri, Oriol, Rawlik, Konrad, Talenti, Andrea, Prendergast, James, Tenesa, Albert·2021·Nature Genetics
DOI 10.1038/s41588-021-00912-0

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41588-021-00912-0

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Scatterplot of male heritability estimates against female heritability estimates for binary traits (on the left) and non-binary traits (on the right). Each point represents a trait, which is marked in red when heritability between the sexes is significantly different at a threshold of q < 0.05. Note that for the binary traits, heritability estimates were considered on the liability scale, which led to some estimates over 1 (see Methods).
Figure 1 Scatterplot of male heritability estimates against female heritability estimates for binary traits (on the left) and non-binary traits (on the right). Each point represents a trait, which is marked in red when heritability between the sexes is significantly different at a threshold of q < 0.05. Note that for the binary traits, heritability estimates were considered on the liability scale, which led to some estimates over 1 (see Methods).CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Weiss, L. A., Pan, L., Abney, M. & Ober, C. The sex-specific genetic architecture of quantitative traits in humans. Nat. Genet. 38, 218–222 (2006). · DOI
  2. Jansen, R. et al. Sex differences in the human peripheral blood transcriptome. BMC Genom. 15, 33 (2014). · DOI
  3. Trabzuni, D. et al. Widespread sex differences in gene expression and splicing in the adult human brain. Nat. Commun. 4, 2771 (2013). · DOI
  4. Kottgen, A. et al. Genome-wide association analyses identify 18 new loci associated with serum urate concentrations. Nat. Genet. 45, 145–154 (2013). · DOI
  5. InanlooRahatloo, K. et al. Sex-based differences in myocardial gene expression in recently deceased organ donors with no prior cardiovascular disease. PLoS ONE 12, e0183874 (2017). · DOI
  6. Gershoni, M. & Pietrokovski, S. The landscape of sex-differential transcriptome and its consequent selection in human adults. BMC Biol. 15, 7 (2017). · DOI
  7. Guo, S. et al. Identification and analysis of the human sex-biased genes. Br. Bioinform. 19, 188–198 (2018). · DOI
  8. Rawlik, K., Canela-Xandri, O. & Tenesa, A. Evidence for sex-specific genetic architectures across a spectrum of human complex traits. Genome Biol. 17, 166 (2016). · DOI
  9. Gilks, W. P., Abbott, J. K. & Morrow, E. H. Sex differences in disease genetics: evidence, evolution, and detection. Trends Genet. 30, 453–463 (2014). · DOI
  10. Traglia, M. et al. Genetic mechanisms leading to sex differences across common diseases and anthropometric traits. Genetics 205, 979–992 (2017). · DOI
  11. Ge, T., Chen, C.-Y., Neale, B. M., Sabuncu, M. R. & Smoller, J. W. Phenome-wide heritability analysis of the UK Biobank. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006711 (2017). · DOI
  12. Yang, J. et al. Genome-wide genetic homogeneity between sexes and populations for human height and body mass index. Hum. Mol. Genet. 24, 7445–7449 (2015). · DOI
  13. Stringer, S., Polderman, T. & Posthuma, D. Majority of human traits do not show evidence for sex-specific genetic and environmental effects. Sci. Rep. 7, 8688 (2017). · DOI
  14. Vink, J. M. et al. Sex differences in genetic architecture of complex phenotypes? PLoS ONE 7, e47371 (2012). · DOI
  15. Winkler, T. W. et al. The influence of age and sex on genetic associations with adult body size and shape: a large-scale genome-wide interaction study. PLoS Genet. 11, e1005378 (2015). · DOI
  16. Pulit, S. L. et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for body fat distribution in 694,649 individuals of European ancestry. Hum. Mol. Genet. 28, 166–174 (2018). · DOI
  17. Doring, A. et al. SLC2A9 influences uric acid concentrations with pronounced sex-specific effects. Nat. Genet. 40, 430–436 (2008). · DOI
  18. Randall, J. C. et al. Sex-stratified genome-wide association studies including 270,000 individuals show sexual dimorphism in genetic loci for anthropometric traits. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003500 (2013). · DOI
  19. Graham, S. E. et al. Sex-specific and pleiotropic effects underlying kidney function identified from GWAS meta-analysis. Nat. Commun. 10, 1847 (2019). · DOI
  20. Beery, A. K. & Zucker, I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 35, 565–572 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Canela-Xandri, O., Law, A., Gray, A., Woolliams, J. A. & Tenesa, A. A new tool called DISSECT for analysing large genomic data sets using a Big Data approach. Nat. Commun. 6, 10162 (2015). · DOI
  22. Yang, J., Zeng, J., Goddard, M. E., Wray, N. R. & Visscher, P. M. Concepts, estimation and interpretation of SNP-based heritability. Nat. Genet. 49, 1304–1310 (2017). · DOI
  23. Ni, G., Moser, G., Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Wray, N. R. & Lee, S. H. Estimation of genetic correlation via linkage disequilibrium score regression and genomic restricted maximum likelihood. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 102, 1185–1194 (2018). · DOI
  24. Kolz, M. et al. Meta-analysis of 28,141 individuals identifies common variants within five new loci that influence uric acid concentrations. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000504 (2009). · DOI
  25. Zhu, F. et al. Mutations in PMFBP1 cause acephalic spermatozoa syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 103, 188–199 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Watanabe, K., Taskesen, E., van Bochoven, A. & Posthuma, D. Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA. Nat. Commun. 8, 1826 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Morgan, C. P. & Bale, T. L. Sex differences in microRNA regulation of gene expression: no smoke, just miRs. Biol. Sex. Differ. 3, 22 (2012). · DOI
  28. Dimas, A. S. et al. Sex-biased genetic effects on gene regulation in humans. Genome Res. 22, 2368–2375 (2012). · DOI
  29. Yao, C. et al. Sex- and age-interacting eQTLs in human complex diseases. Hum. Mol. Genet. 23, 1947–1956 (2014). · DOI
  30. Kassam, I. et al. Autosomal genetic control of human gene expression does not differ across the sexes. Genome Biol. 17, 248 (2016). · DOI
  31. Porcu, E. et al. The role of gene expression on human sexual dimorphism: too early to call. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.15.042986 (2020). · DOI
  32. Bahram, S., Bresnahan, M., Geraghty, D. E. & Spies, T. A second lineage of mammalian major histocompatibility complex class I genes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 6259–6263 (1994). · DOI
  33. Dunham, I. et al. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  34. Robinson, J. L. L. & Carroll, J. S. FoxA1 is a key mediator of hormonal response in breast and prostate cancer. Front. Endocrinol. 3, 68 (2012). · DOI
  35. Li, Z., Tuteja, G., Schug, J. & Kaestner, K. H. Foxa1 and Foxa2 are essential for sexual dimorphism in liver cancer. Cell 148, 72–83 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.026 · DOI
  36. Canela-Xandri, O., Rawlik, K. & Tenesa, A. An atlas of genetic associations in UK Biobank. Nat. Genet. 50, 1593–1599 (2018). · DOI
  37. Loh, P.-R., Kichaev, G., Gazal, S., Schoech, A. P. & Price, A. L. Mixed-model association for biobank-scale datasets. Nat. Genet. 50, 906–908 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  38. Munoz, M. et al. Evaluating the contribution of genetics and familial shared environment to common disease using the UK Biobank. Nat. Genet. 48, 980–983 (2016). · DOI
  39. Hansen, T. F., Pélabon, C. & Houle, D. Heritability is not evolvability. Evol. Biol. 38, 258 (2011). · DOI
  40. Garcia-Gonzalez, F., Simmons, L. W., Tomkins, J. L., Kotiaho, J. S. & Evans, J. P. Comparing evolvabilities: common errors surrounding the calculation and use of coefficients of additive genetic variation. Evolution 66, 2341–2349 (2012). · DOI
  41. Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet 81, 559–575 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  42. Mason, S. J. & Graham, N. E. Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves: statistical significance and interpretation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 128, 2145–2166 (2002). · DOI
  43. Fisher, R. A. Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 10, 507 (1915).
  44. Buniello, A. et al. The NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D1005–D1012 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Lawrence, M. et al. Software for computing and annotating genomic ranges. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003118 (2013). · DOI
  46. Kinsella, R. J. et al. Ensembl BioMarts: a hub for data retrieval across taxonomic space. Database 2011, bar030 (2011). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 157

Metadata

Authors
Bernabeu, E., Canela-Xandri, O., Rawlik, K., Talenti, A., Prendergast, J., & Tenesa, A.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Genetics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-09
Volume
53
Issue
9
Pages
1283-1289
ISSN
  • 1061-4036
  • 1546-1718
DOI
10.1038/s41588-021-00912-0
Cited by
157
References
18
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/E/D/10002070, BBS/E/D/30002275, BBS/E/D/30002276)
  • RCUK | Medical Research Council (MR/P015514/1, MR/R025851/1)
  • The Roslin Institute Foundation - Steve Bishop Memorial PhD Fellowship

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