• Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The contribution of rare coding sequence variants to genetic susceptibility in complex disorders is an important but unresolved question. Most studies thus far have investigated a limited number of genes from regions which contain common disease associated variants. Here we investigate this in inflammatory bowel disease by sequencing the exons and proximal promoters of 531 genes selected from both genome-wide association studies and pathway analysis in pooled DNA panels from 474 cases of Crohn's disease and 480 controls. 80 variants with evidence of association in the sequencing experiment or with potential functional significance were selected for follow up genotyping in 6,507 IBD cases and 3,064 population controls. The top 5 disease associated variants were genotyped in an extension panel of 3,662 IBD cases and 3,639 controls, and tested for association in a combined analysis of 10,147 IBD cases and 7,008 controls. A rare coding variant p.G454C in the BTNL2 gene within the major histocompatibility complex was significantly associated with increased risk for IBD (p = 9.65x10-10, OR = 2.3[95% CI = 1.75-3.04]), but was independent of the known common associated CD and UC variants at this locus. Rare (<1%) and low frequency (1-5%) variants in 3 additional genes showed suggestive association (p<0.005) with either an increased risk (ARIH2 c.338-6C>T) or decreased risk (IL12B p.V298F, and NICN p.H191R) of IBD. These results provide additional insights into the involvement of the inhibition of T cell activation in the development of both sub-phenotypes of inflammatory bowel disease. We suggest that although rare coding variants may make a modest overall contribution to complex disease susceptibility, they can inform our understanding of the molecular pathways that contribute to pathogenesis.
    PLoS Genetics 02/2015; 11(2):e1004955. DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004955 · 8.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Genome-wide association study (GWAS) provides a powerful tool for investigating the genetic architecture of human polygenic diseases and is generally used to identify the genetic factors of disease susceptibility, clinical phenotypes, and treatment response. The differences in allele frequencies of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) distributed throughout the genome are analyzed with a microarray technique or other technologies that allow simultaneous genotyping at several tens of thousands to several millions of SNPs per sample. Owing to its power to find out highly reliable differences between patients and controls, GWAS became a common approach to identification of the genetic susceptibility factors in complex diseases of a polygenic nature. Using multiple sclerosis (MS) as a prototype complex disease, the review considers the main achievements and challenges of using GWAS to identify the genes involved in the disease and, therefore, to better understand the pathogenetic molecular mechanisms and genetic risk factors.
    Molecular Biology 07/2014; 48(4):496-507. DOI:10.1134/S0026893314040037 · 0.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prioritizing missense variants for further experimental investigation is a key challenge in current sequencing studies for exploring complex and Mendelian diseases. A large number of in silico tools have been employed for the task of pathogenicity prediction, including PolyPhen-2, SIFT, FatHMM, MutationTaster-2, MutationAssessor, CADD, LRT, phyloP and GERP++, as well as optimized methods of combining tool scores, such as Condel and Logit. Due to the wealth of these methods, an important practical question to answer is which of these tools generalize best, that is, correctly predict the pathogenic character of new variants. We here demonstrate in a study of ten tools on five datasets that such a comparative evaluation of these tools is hindered by two types of circularity: they arise due to (1) the same variants or (2) different variants from the same protein occurring both in the datasets used for training and for evaluation of these tools, which may lead to overly optimistic results. We show that comparative evaluations of predictors that do not address these types of circularity may erroneously conclude that circularity-confounded tools are most accurate among all tools, and may even outperform optimized combinations of tools. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Human Mutation 02/2015; DOI:10.1002/humu.22768 · 5.05 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
74 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014