Epigenetic variation impacts ancestry-associated differences in the transcriptional response to influenza infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Humans display remarkable inter-individual variation in immune response when exposed to identical immune challenges. Yet, our understanding of the genetic and epigenetic factors contributing to such variation remains limited. Here we carried out in-depth genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptional profiling on primary macrophages derived from a panel of European and African-ancestry individuals before and after infection with influenza A virus (IAV). We show that baseline epigenetic profiles are strongly predictive of the transcriptional response to IAV across individuals, and that ancestry-associated differences in gene expression are tightly coupled with variation in enhancer activity. Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping revealed highly coordinated genetic effects on gene regulation with many cis-acting genetic variants impacting concomitantly gene expression and multiple epigenetic marks. These data reveal that ancestry-associated differences in the epigenetic landscape are genetically controlled, even more so than variation in gene expression. Lastly, we show that among QTL variants that colocalized with immune-disease loci, only 7% were gene expression QTL, the remaining corresponding to genetic variants that impact one or more epigenetic marks, which stresses the importance of considering molecular phenotypes beyond gene expression in disease-focused studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".