Immunochip Analyses of Epistasis in Rheumatoid Arthritis Confirm Multiple Interactions within MHC and Suggest Novel Non-MHC Epistatic Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studying statistical gene-gene interactions (epistasis) has been limited by the difficulties in performance, both statistically and computationally, in large enough sample numbers to gain sufficient power. Three large Immunochip datasets from cohort samples recruited in the United Kingdom, United States, and Sweden with European ancestry were used to examine epistasis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A full pairwise search was conducted in the UK cohort using a high-throughput tool and the resultant significant epistatic signals were tested for replication in the United States and Swedish cohorts. A forward selection approach was applied to remove redundant signals, while conditioning on the preidentified additive effects. RESULTS: We detected abundant genome-wide significant (p < 1.0e-13) epistatic signals, all within the MHC region. These signals were reduced substantially, but a proportion remained significant (p < 1.0e-03) in conditional tests. We identified 11 independent epistatic interactions across the entire MHC, each explaining on average 0.12% of the phenotypic variance, nearly all replicated in both replication cohorts. We also identified non-MHC epistatic interactions between RA susceptible loci LOC100506023 and IRF5 with Immunochip-wide significance (p < 1.1e-08) and between 2 neighboring single-nucleotide polymorphism near PTPN22 that were in low linkage disequilibrium with independent interaction (p < 1.0e-05). Both non-MHC epistatic interactions were statistically replicated with a similar interaction pattern in the US cohort only. CONCLUSION: There are multiple but relatively weak interactions independent of the additive effects in RA and a larger sample number is required to confidently assign additional non-MHC epistasis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".