A Multi-tissue Transcriptome Analysis of Human Metabolites Guides Interpretability of Associations Based on Multi-SNP Models for Gene Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is particular interest in transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) gene-level tests based on multi-SNP predictive models of gene expression-for identifying causal genes at loci associated with complex traits. However, interpretation of TWAS associations may be complicated by divergent effects of model SNPs on phenotype and gene expression. We developed an iterative modeling scheme for obtaining multi-SNP models of gene expression and applied this framework to generate expression models for 43 human tissues from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project. We characterized the performance of single- and multi-SNP models for identifying causal genes in GWAS data for 46 circulating metabolites. We show that: (A) multi-SNP models captured more variation in expression than did the top cis-eQTL (median 2-fold improvement); (B) predicted expression based on multi-SNP models was associated (false discovery rate < 0.01) with metabolite levels for 826 unique gene-metabolite pairs, but, after stepwise conditional analyses, 90% were dominated by a single eQTL SNP; (C) among the 35% of associations where a SNP in the expression model was a significant cis-eQTL and metabolomic-QTL (met-QTL), 92% demonstrated colocalization between these signals, but interpretation was often complicated by incomplete overlap of QTLs in multi-SNP models; and (D) using a "truth" set of causal genes at 61 met-QTLs, the sensitivity was high (67%), but the positive predictive value was low, as only 8% of TWAS associations (19% when restricted to colocalized associations at met-QTLs) involved true causal genes. These results guide the interpretation of TWAS and highlight the need for corroborative data to provide confident assignment of causality.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".