Cascading Epigenomic Analysis for Identifying Disease Genes from the Regulatory Landscape of GWAS Variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The majority of genetic variants detected in genome wide association studies (GWAS) exert their effects on phenotypes through gene regulation. Motivated by this observation, we propose a multi-omic integration method that models the cascading effects of genetic variants from epigenome to transcriptome and eventually to the phenome in identifying target genes influenced by risk alleles. This cascading epigenomic analysis for GWAS, which we refer to as CEWAS, comprises two types of models: one for linking cis genetic effects to epigenomic variation and another for linking cis epigenomic variation to gene expression. Applying these models in cascade to GWAS summary statistics generates gene level statistics that reflect genetically-driven epigenomic effects. We show on sixteen brain-related GWAS that CEWAS provides higher gene detection rate than related methods, and finds disease relevant genes and gene sets that point toward less explored biological processes. CEWAS thus presents a novel means for exploring the regulatory landscape of GWAS variants in uncovering disease mechanisms. Summary The majority of genetic variants detected in genome wide association studies (GWAS) exert their effects on phenotypes through gene regulation. Motivated by this observation, we propose a multi-omic integration method that models the cascading effects of genetic variants from epigenome to transcriptome and eventually to the phenome in identifying target genes influenced by risk alleles. This cascading epigenomic analysis for GWAS, which we refer to as CEWAS, combines the effect of genetic variants on DNA methylation as well as gene expression. We show on sixteen brain-related GWAS that CEWAS provides higher gene detection rate than related methods, and finds disease relevant genes and gene sets that point toward less explored biological processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".