Regulatory genomic circuitry of human disease loci by integrative epigenomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Annotating the molecular basis of human disease remains an unsolved challenge, as 93% of disease loci are non-coding and gene-regulatory annotations are highly incomplete 1–3 . Here we present EpiMap, a compendium comprising 10,000 epigenomic maps across 800 samples, which we used to define chromatin states, high-resolution enhancers, enhancer modules, upstream regulators and downstream target genes. We used this resource to annotate 20,000 genetic loci that were associated with 232 traits 4 , predicting trait-relevant tissues, putative causal nucleotide variants in enriched tissue enhancers and candidate tissue-specific target genes for each. We partitioned multifactorial traits into tissue-specific contributing factors with distinct functional enrichments and disease comorbidity patterns, and revealed both single-factor monotropic and multifactor pleiotropic loci. Top-scoring loci frequently had multiple predicted driver variants, converging through multiple enhancers with a common target gene, multiple genes in common tissues, or multiple genes and multiple tissues, indicating extensive pleiotropy. Our results demonstrate the importance of dense, rich, high-resolution epigenomic annotations for the investigation of complex traits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".