Cited by 53Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic Variations

“Reverse genomics” predicts function of human conserved noncoding elements

Open access
Marcovitz, Amir, Jia, Robin, Bejerano, Gill·2016·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

Evolutionary changes in cis-regulatory elements are thought to play a key role in morphological and physiological diversity across animals. Many conserved noncoding elements (CNEs) function as cis-regulatory elements, controlling gene expression levels in different biological contexts. However, determining specific associations between CNEs and related phenotypes is a challenging task. Here, we present a computational "reverse genomics" approach that predicts the phenotypic functions of human CNEs. We identify thousands of human CNEs that were lost in at least two independent mammalian lineages (IL-CNEs), and match their evolutionary profiles against a diverse set of phenotypes recently annotated across multiple mammalian species. We identify 2,759 compelling associations between human CNEs and a diverse set of mammalian phenotypes. We discuss multiple CNEs, including a predicted ear element near BMP7, a pelvic CNE in FBN1, a brain morphology element in UBE4B, and an aquatic adaptation forelimb CNE near EGR2, and provide a full list of our predictions. As more genomes are sequenced and more traits are annotated across species, we expect our method to facilitate the interpretation of noncoding mutations in human disease and expedite the discovery of individual CNEs that play key roles in human evolution and development.

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 · 10.1093/molbev/msw001

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Marcovitz et al. (2016) used parsimony to reconstruct traits and genome transitions and estimate their correlations, but were unable to account for the uncertainty of conservation pattern estimated from the sequencing data or the probability of a chance match between sequence evolutionary history and phenotype.

    “For example, Marcovitz et al. (2016) used parsimony to reconstruct traits and genome transitions and estimate their correlations, but in doing so were unable to account for the uncertainty of conservation pattern estimated from the sequencing data or the probability of a chance match between sequence evolutionary history and phenotype.”

    From Bayesian Detection of Convergent Rate Changes of Conserved Noncoding Elements on Phylogenetic Trees (2019) · cites this paper as Marcovitz et al. 2016

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Siepel A, Haussler D. 2004. Computational identification of evolution- arily conserved exons. In: Gusfield D, Bourne P, Istrail S, Pevzner P, Waterman M, editors. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology. RECOMB '04. New York: ACM. p. 177-186. Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/974614.974638. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marcovitz, A., Jia, R., & Bejerano, G.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Bejerano, Gill
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2016-01-06
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
1358-1369
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2230069903
Cited by
53
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  • Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales
  • National Institutes of Health (DGE-114747)
  • Center for Computational, Evolutionary and Human Genomics, Stanford University
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH105949)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
conserved non-coding elements, cis-regulatory elements, human evolution, non-coding mutations, BMP-7, fibrillin-1, UBE4B, EGR2, ear development, pelvic development, brain structure, aquatic adaptation, forelimb development, gene expression regulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, Enhancer Elements, Genetic, Biological Evolution, Genes, Regulator, Humans, Mammals, Phylogeny, Regulatory Sequences, Nucleic Acid, Conserved Sequence, Evolution, Molecular, DNA, Intergenic, RNA, Untranslated, Databases, Nucleic Acid, Genetic Association Studies, Reverse Genetics

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