The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting gene targets from integrative analyses of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies for 28 human complex traits
Open accessAbstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified hundreds of genetic variants associated with complex traits and diseases. However, elucidating the causal genes underlying GWAS hits remains challenging. We applied the summary data-based Mendelian randomization (SMR) method to 28 GWAS summary datasets to identify genes whose expression levels were associated with traits and diseases due to pleiotropy or causality (the expression level of a gene and the trait are affected by the same causal variant at a locus). We identified 71 genes, of which 17 are novel associations (no GWAS hit within 1 Mb distance of the genes). We integrated all the results in an online database ( http://www.cnsgenomics/shiny/SMRdb/ ), providing important resources to prioritize genes for further follow-up, for example in functional studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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 [113]
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.
Citations
Cites
Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology
Lawlor, D. A., Harbord, R. M., Sterne, J. A. C., Timpson, N., & Davey Smith, G. (2008) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3034 · Cited by 4,618
Meta-Analysis of 74,046 Individuals Identifies 11 New Susceptibility Loci for Alzheimer’s Disease
(EADI), E. A. D. I., Lambert, J.-C., (GERAD), G. A. E. R. I. A. D., Alzheimer's Disease Genetic Consortium (ADGC), (CHARGE), C. F. H. A. A. R. I. G. E., Ibrahim-Verbaas, C. A., Harold, D., Naj, A. C., Sims, R., Bellenguez, C., et al. (2013) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.2802 · Cited by 4,336
Giambartolomei, C., Vukcevic, D., Schadt, E. E., Franke, L., Hingorani, A. D., Wallace, C., & Plagnol, V. (2014) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004383 · Cited by 4,261
Hindorff, L. A., Sethupathy, P., Junkins, H. A., Ramos, E. M., Mehta, J. P., Collins, F. S., & Manolio, T. A. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0903103106 · Cited by 4,013
Integration of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies predicts complex trait gene targets
Zhu, Z., Zhang, F., Hu, H., Bakshi, A., Robinson, M. R., Powell, J. E., Montgomery, G. W., Goddard, M. E., Wray, N. R., Visscher, P. M., et al. (2016) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3538 · Cited by 3,352
Self-citation(2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)62129-1 · Cited by 3,010
Willer (2013) · doi:10.1038/ng.2797 · Cited by 2,983
The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations
Welter, D., MacArthur, J., Morales, J., Burdett, T., Hall, P., Junkins, H., Klemm, A., Flicek, P., Manolio, T., Hindorff, L., et al. (2014) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1229 · Cited by 2,707
Liu, J. Z., van Sommeren, S., Huang, H., Ng, S. C., Alberts, R., Takahashi, A., Ripke, S., Lee, J. C., Jostins, L., Shah, T., et al. (2015) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3359 · Cited by 2,603
Franke, A., McGovern, D. P. B., Barrett, J. C., Wang, K., Radford-Smith, G. L., Ahmad, T., Lees, C. W., Balschun, T., Lee, J., Roberts, R., et al. (2010) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.717 · Cited by 2,520
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sanderson, E., Glymour, M. M., Holmes, M. V., Kang, H., Morrison, J., Munafò, M. R., Palmer, T., Schooling, C. M., Wallace, C., Zhao, Q., et al. (2022) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00092-5 · Cited by 2,229
Genome-wide association study identifies 30 loci associated with bipolar disorder
eQTLGen Consortium, Stahl, E. A., BIOS Consortium, the Bipolar Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Breen, G., Forstner, A. J., McQuillin, A., Ripke, S., Trubetskoy, V., Mattheisen, M., et al. (2019) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-019-0397-8 · Cited by 1,519
Self-citationHou, L., Kellis, M., Liu, Y., Park, Y., & Rinaldi, N. J. (2018) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · doi:10.34944/dspace/4648 · Cited by 1,082
Opportunities and challenges for transcriptome-wide association studies
Wainberg, M., Sinnott-Armstrong, N., Mancuso, N., Barbeira, A., Knowles, D. A., Golan, D., Ermel, R., Ruusalepp, A., Quertermous, T., Hao, K., et al. (2019) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-019-0385-z · Cited by 906
Dissecting the genetics of complex traits using summary association statistics
Paşaniuc, B., & Price, A. L. (2016) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2016.142 · Cited by 461
Metadata
- Authors
- Pavlides, J. M. W., Zhu, Z., Gratten, J., McRae, A. F., Wray, N. R., & Yang, J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Yang, Jian
- ORCID
- Venue
- Genome Medicine
- Published
- 2016-08-09
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 84-84
- ISSN
- 1756-994X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4979185
- OpenAlex
- W2499155228
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 8.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Genome Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (1107258, 1078901)
- National Health and Medical Research Council (1083656, 1078901, 1087889, 1107258)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
- Keywords
- expression quantitative trait loci, summary-data-based Mendelian randomization, complex traits, causal gene identification, pleiotropy, gene expression, gene prioritization
- MeSH terms
- Autism Spectrum Disorder, Alzheimer Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, Gene Expression Regulation, Genotype, Humans, Phenotype, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Models, Statistical, Genome, Human, Quantitative Trait, Heritable, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Gene Expression Profiling, Databases, Genetic, Quantitative Trait Loci, Genome-Wide Association Study, Genetic Pleiotropy
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
