Enrichment of colorectal cancer associations in functional regions: Insight for using epigenomics data in the analysis of whole genome sequence-imputed GWAS data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of less frequent genetic variants and their effect on complex disease pose new challenges for genomic research. To investigate whether epigenetic data can be used to inform aggregate rare-variant association methods (RVAM), we assessed whether variants more significantly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) were preferentially located in non-coding regulatory regions, and whether enrichment was specific to colorectal tissues. METHODS: Active regulatory elements (ARE) were mapped using data from 127 tissues and cell-types from NIH Roadmap Epigenomics and Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) projects. We investigated whether CRC association p-values were more significant for common variants inside versus outside AREs, or 2) inside colorectal (CR) AREs versus AREs of other tissues and cell-types. We employed an integrative epigenomic RVAM for variants with allele frequency <1%. Gene sets were defined as ARE variants within 200 kilobases of a transcription start site (TSS) using either CR ARE or ARE from non-digestive tissues. CRC-set association p-values were used to evaluate enrichment of less frequent variant associations in CR ARE versus non-digestive ARE. RESULTS: ARE from 126/127 tissues and cell-types were significantly enriched for stronger CRC-variant associations. Strongest enrichment was observed for digestive tissues and immune cell types. CR-specific ARE were also enriched for stronger CRC-variant associations compared to ARE combined across non-digestive tissues (p-value = 9.6 × 10-4). Additionally, we found enrichment of stronger CRC association p-values for rare variant sets of CR ARE compared to non-digestive ARE (p-value = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Integrative epigenomic RVAM may enable discovery of less frequent variants associated with CRC, and ARE of digestive and immune tissues are most informative. Although distance-based aggregation of less frequent variants in CR ARE surrounding TSS showed modest enrichment, future association studies would likely benefit from joint analysis of transcriptomes and epigenomes to better link regulatory variation with target genes.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".