MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805552512 · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2018.06.001

Genome-wide association study of extreme high bone mass: Contribution of common genetic variation to extreme BMD phenotypes and potential novel BMD-associated genes

2018· article· en· W2805552512 on OpenAlexafffund
Celia L. Gregson, Felicity Newell, Paul Leo, Graeme R. Clark, Lavinia Paternoster, Mhairi Marshall, Vincenzo Forgetta, John Morris, Bing Ge, Xiao Bao, J. H. Duncan Bassett, Graham R. Williams, Scott E. Youlten, Peter I. Croucher, George Davey Smith, David M. Evans, John P. Kemp, Matthew A. Brown, Jonathan H. Tobias, Emma L. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueBone · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilResearch Councils UKBritish Geriatrics SocietyNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome TrustSeventh Framework ProgrammeVersus ArthritisArthritis Research UKPoultry Industry Council
KeywordsGenome-wide association studyOsteoporosisMinor allele frequencyQuantitative trait locusBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismPopulationGenetic associationGeneticsBone mineralInternal medicineAlleleAllele frequencyMedicineGeneEndocrinologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Generalised high bone mass (HBM), associated with features of a mild skeletal dysplasia, has a prevalence of 0.18% in a UK DXA-scanned adult population. We hypothesized that the genetic component of extreme HBM includes contributions from common variants of small effect and rarer variants of large effect, both enriched in an extreme phenotype cohort. METHODS: We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of adults with either extreme high or low BMD. Adults included individuals with unexplained extreme HBM (n = 240) from the UK with BMD Z-scores ≥+3.2, high BMD females from the Anglo-Australasian Osteoporosis Genetics Consortium (AOGC) (n = 1055) with Z-scores +1.5 to +4.0 and low BMD females also part of AOGC (n = 900), with Z-scores -1.5 to -4.0. Following imputation, we tested association between 6,379,332 SNPs and total hip and lumbar spine BMD Z-scores. For potential target genes, we assessed expression in human osteoblasts and murine osteocytes. RESULTS: We observed significant enrichment for associations with established BMD-associated loci, particularly those known to regulate endochondral ossification and Wnt signalling, suggesting that part of the genetic contribution to unexplained HBM is polygenic. Further, we identified associations exceeding genome-wide significance between BMD and four loci: two established BMD-associated loci (5q14.3 containing MEF2C and 1p36.12 containing WNT4) and two novel loci: 5p13.3 containing NPR3 (rs9292469; minor allele frequency [MAF] = 0.33%) associated with lumbar spine BMD and 11p15.2 containing SPON1 (rs2697825; MAF = 0.17%) associated with total hip BMD. Mouse models with mutations in either Npr3 or Spon1 have been reported, both have altered skeletal phenotypes, providing in vivo validation that these genes are physiologically important in bone. NRP3 regulates endochondral ossification and skeletal growth, whilst SPON1 modulates TGF-β regulated BMP-driven osteoblast differentiation. Rs9292469 (downstream of NPR3) also showed some evidence for association with forearm BMD in the independent GEFOS sample (n = 32,965). We found Spon1 was highly expressed in murine osteocytes from the tibiae, femora, humeri and calvaria, whereas Npr3 expression was more variable. CONCLUSION: We report the most extreme-truncate GWAS of BMD performed to date. Our findings, suggest potentially new anabolic bone regulatory pathways that warrant further study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBoneSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207