CRISPRi perturbation screens and eQTLs provide complementary and distinct insights into GWAS target genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most genetic variants associated with human traits and diseases lie in noncoding regions of the genome 1 , and a key challenge is determining which genes they affect 2,3 . A common approach has been to leverage associations between natural genetic variation and gene expression to identify expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) in the population 4,5 . At the same time, a novel approach uses pooled CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) perturbations of noncoding loci with single-cell transcriptome sequencing 6,7 . Here, we systematically harmonized and compared the results from these approaches across hundreds of genomic regions associated with blood cell traits. We find that while the two approaches sometimes identify the same target genes, there are considerable differences that affect biological inferences made from the data. CRISPRi preferentially maps highly proximal, constraint-enriched genes, whereas eQTLs recover multiple, often distal targets. By benchmarking against 1,075 gold-standard CRE–gene pairs linked to blood traits, we show that the two approaches identify largely distinct targets; when combined, they achieve a balance between accuracy and completeness of gene discovery. Our results offer guidance for improved design of CRISPRi and eQTL studies and highlight their joint potential as a powerful toolkit for interpreting disease-associated loci.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".