Transcriptome-wide association studies: opportunities and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) integrate GWAS and gene expression datasets to find gene-trait associations. In this Perspective, we explore properties of TWAS as a potential approach to prioritize causal genes, using simulations and case studies of literature-curated candidate causal genes for schizophrenia, LDL cholesterol and Crohn’s disease. We explore risk loci where TWAS accurately prioritizes the likely causal gene, as well as loci where TWAS prioritizes multiple genes, some of which are unlikely to be causal, because they share the same variants as eQTLs. We illustrate that TWAS is especially prone to spurious prioritization when using expression data from tissues or cell types that are less related to the trait, due to substantial variation in both expression levels and eQTL strengths across cell types. Nonetheless, TWAS prioritizes candidate causal genes at GWAS loci more accurately than simple baselines based on proximity to lead GWAS variant and expression in trait-related tissue. We discuss current strategies and future opportunities for improving the performance of TWAS for causal gene prioritization. Our results showcase the strengths and limitations of using expression variation across individuals to determine causal genes at GWAS loci and provide guidelines and best practices when using TWAS to prioritize candidate causal 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 | 0.183 | 0.263 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".