CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Common genetic associations between age-related diseases

Dönertaş, Handan Melike, Fabian, Daniel K., Fuentealba, Matías, Partridge, Linda, Thornton, Janet M.·2021·Nature Aging
DOI 10.1038/s43587-021-00051-5PMC PMC7610725

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/s43587-021-00051-5

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Crimmins, E. M. Lifespan and healthspan: past, present, and promise. Gerontologist 55, 901–911 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Partridge, L., Deelen, J. & Slagboom, P. E. Facing up to the global challenges of ageing. Nature 561, 45–56 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Flatt, T. & Partridge, L. Horizons in the evolution of aging. BMC Biol. 16, 93 (2018). · DOI
  4. Medvedev, Z. A. An attempt at a rational classification of theories of ageing. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 65, 375–398 (1990). · DOI
  5. Medawar, P. B. Unsolved problem of biology. Med. J. Aust. 1, 854–855 (1953). · DOI
  6. Williams, G. C. Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolution of senescence. Evolution 11, 398–411 (1957). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Pickrell, J. K. et al. Detection and interpretation of shared genetic influences on 42 human traits. Nat. Genet. 48, 709–717 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Cross-Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium et al. Genetic relationship between five psychiatric disorders estimated from genome-wide SNPs. Nat. Genet. 45, 984–994 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cortes, A., Albers, P. K., Dendrou, C. A., Fugger, L. & McVean, G. Identifying cross-disease components of genetic risk across hospital data in the UK Biobank. Nat. Genet. 52, 126–134 (2020). · DOI
  10. Solovieff, N., Cotsapas, C., Lee, P. H., Purcell, S. M. & Smoller, J. W. Pleiotropy in complex traits: challenges and strategies. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 483–495 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Parkes, M., Cortes, A., van Heel, D. A. & Brown, M. A. Genetic insights into common pathways and complex relationships among immune-mediated diseases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 661–673 (2013). · DOI
  12. Bien, S. A. & Peters, U. Moving from one to many: insights from the growing list of pleiotropic cancer risk genes. Br. J. Cancer 120, 1087–1089 (2019). · DOI
  13. Johnson, S. C., Dong, X., Vijg, J. & Suh, Y. Genetic evidence for common pathways in human age-related diseases. Aging Cell 14, 809–817 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Fernandes, M. et al. Systematic analysis of the gerontome reveals links between aging and age-related diseases. Hum. Mol. Genet. 25, 4804–4818 (2016).
  15. Wang, J., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Chen, L. & Zhang, X.-S. Disease-aging network reveals significant roles of aging genes in connecting genetic diseases. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000521 (2009). · DOI
  16. Bycroft, C. et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 562, 203–209 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Chouakria, A. D. & Nagabhushan, P. N. Adaptive dissimilarity index for measuring time series proximity. Adv. Data Anal. Classif. 1, 5–21 (2007). · DOI
  18. Loh, P.-R. et al. Efficient Bayesian mixed-model analysis increases association power in large cohorts. Nat. Genet. 47, 284–290 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Anderson, C. A. et al. Data quality control in genetic case-control association studies. Nat. Protoc. 5, 1564–1573 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Zhou, W. et al. Efficiently controlling for case-control imbalance and sample relatedness in large-scale genetic association studies. Nat. Genet. 50, 1335–1341 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Pe’er, I., Yelensky, R., Altshuler, D. & Daly, M. Estimation of the multiple testing burden for genomewide association studies of common variants. Nat. Preced. https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2007.359.1 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Panagiotou, O. A. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. What should the genome-wide significance threshold be? Empirical replication of borderline genetic associations. Int. J. Epidemiol. 41, 273–286 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Human genome region MHC (Genome Reference Consortium, accessed June 2019); https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/grc/human/regions/MHC?asm=GRCh37
  24. Berisa, T. & Pickrell, J. K. Approximately independent linkage disequilibrium blocks in human populations. Bioinformatics 32, 283–285 (2016). · DOI
  25. Ning, Z., Pawitan, Y. & Shen, X. High-definition likelihood inference of genetic correlations across human complex traits. Nat. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-0653-y (2020). · DOI
  26. Gamazon, E. R. et al. Using an atlas of gene regulation across 44 human tissues to inform complex disease- and trait-associated variation. Nat. Genet. 50, 956–967 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Tacutu, R. et al. Human ageing genomic resources: new and updated databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1083–D1090 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  28. Barardo, D. et al. The DrugAge database of aging-related drugs. Aging Cell 16, 594–597 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  29. Avelar, R. A. et al. A multidimensional systems biology analysis of cellular senescence in aging and disease. Genome Biol. 21, 91 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  30. Adelman, E. R. et al. Aging human hematopoietic stem cells manifest profound epigenetic reprogramming of enhancers that may predispose to leukemia. Cancer Discov. 9, 1080–1101 (2019). · DOI
  31. Marttila, S. et al. Ageing-associated changes in the human DNA methylome: genomic locations and effects on gene expression. BMC Genomics 16, 179 (2015). · DOI
  32. Sun, L.-Q. et al. Growth retardation and premature aging phenotypes in mice with disruption of the SNF2-like gene, PASG. Genes Dev. 18, 1035–1046 (2004). · DOI
  33. Rodríguez, J. A. et al. Antagonistic pleiotropy and mutation accumulation influence human senescence and disease. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 55 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  34. Bitarello, B. D. et al. Signatures of long-term balancing selection in human genomes. Genome Biol. Evol. 10, 939–955 (2018). · DOI
  35. Nielsen, R. et al. A scan for positively selected genes in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. PLoS Biol. 3, e170 (2005). · DOI
  36. Shultz, A. J. & Sackton, T. B. Immune genes are hotspots of shared positive selection across birds and mammals. eLife 8, e41815 (2019). · DOI
  37. Wolfson, M., Budovsky, A., Tacutu, R. & Fraifeld, V. The signaling hubs at the crossroad of longevity and age-related disease networks. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 41, 516–520 (2009). · DOI
  38. Kanchi, K. L. et al. Integrated analysis of germline and somatic variants in ovarian cancer. Nat. Commun. 5, 3156 (2014). · DOI
  39. Khurana, E. et al. Role of non-coding sequence variants in cancer. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 93–108 (2016). · DOI
  40. Poduri, A., Evrony, G. D., Cai, X. & Walsh, C. A. Somatic mutation, genomic variation, and neurological disease. Science 341, 1237758 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  41. Sánchez-Valle, J. et al. Interpreting molecular similarity between patients as a determinant of disease comorbidity relationships. Nat. Commun. 11, 2854 (2020). · DOI
  42. Gutiérrez-Sacristán, A. et al. comoRbidity: an R package for the systematic analysis of disease comorbidities. Bioinformatics 34, 3228–3230 (2018). · DOI
  43. Montero, P. & Vilar, J. TSclust: an R package for time series clustering. J. Stat. Software, Articles 62, 1–43 (2014).
  44. Berndt, D. J. & Clifford, J. Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 359–370 (AAAI Press, 1994).
  45. Tibshirani, R., Walther, G. & Hastie, T. Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 63, 411–423 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  46. Stephenson, J. D., Laskowski, R. A., Nightingale, A., Hurles, M. E. & Thornton, J. M. VarMap: a web tool for mapping genomic coordinates to protein sequence and structure and retrieving protein structural annotations. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz482 (2019). · DOI
  47. Obenchain, V. et al. VariantAnnotation: a Bioconductor package for exploration and annotation of genetic variants. Bioinformatics 30, 2076–2078 (2014). · DOI
  48. Lawrence, M. et al. Software for computing and annotating genomic ranges. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003118 (2013). · DOI
  49. Durinck, S., Spellman, P. T., Birney, E. & Huber, W. Mapping identifiers for the integration of genomic datasets with the R/Bioconductor package biomaRt. Nat. Protoc. 4, 1184–1191 (2009). · DOI
  50. Lawrence, M., Gentleman, R. & Carey, V. rtracklayer: an R package for interfacing with genome browsers. Bioinformatics 25, 1841–1842 (2009). · DOI
  51. Lage, K. et al. A large-scale analysis of tissue-specific pathology and gene expression of human disease genes and complexes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 20870–20875 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  52. 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
  53. Kim, S. et al. PubChem 2019 update: improved access to chemical data. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D1102–D1109 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  54. Chambers, J. et al. UniChem: a unified chemical structure cross-referencing and identifier tracking system. J. Cheminform. 5, 3 (2013). · DOI
  55. Gaulton, A. et al. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D945–D954 (2017). · DOI
  56. Cotto, K. C. et al. DGIdb 3.0: a redesign and expansion of the drug–gene interaction database. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1068–D1073 (2018). · DOI
  57. Gene Ontology Consortium.The Gene Ontology Resource: 20 years and still GOing strong. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D330–D338 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  58. Benjamini, Y. & Yekutieli, D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann. Stat. 29, 1165–1188 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  59. Ooms, J. The jsonlite package: a practical and consistent mapping between JSON data and R objects. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2805 (2014). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Dönertaş, H. M., Fabian, D. K., Fuentealba, M., Partridge, L., & Thornton, J. M.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Aging
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-04-08
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
400-412
ISSN
2662-8465
DOI
10.1038/s43587-021-00051-5
PMC
PMC7610725
Cited by
346
References
17
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (098565/Z/12/Z)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (-)

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