Biological constraints on GWAS SNPs at suggestive significance thresholds reveal additional BMI loci

  1. Reza K Hammond
  2. Matthew C Pahl
  3. Chun Su
  4. Diana L Cousminer
  5. Michelle E Leonard
  6. Sumei Lu
  7. Claudia A Doege
  8. Yadav Wagley
  9. Kenyaita M Hodge
  10. Chiara Lasconi
  11. Matthew E Johnson
  12. James A Pippin
  13. Kurt D Hankenson
  14. Rudolph L Leibel
  15. Alessandra Chesi
  16. Andrew D Wells
  17. Struan FA Grant  Is a corresponding author
  1. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, United States
  2. Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States
  3. University of Michigan Medical School, United States

Abstract

To uncover novel significant association signals (P<5x10-8), GWAS requires increasingly larger sample sizes to overcome statistical correction for multiple testing. As an alternative, we aimed to identify associations among suggestive signals (5x10-8P < 5x10-4) in increasingly powered GWAS efforts using chromatin accessibility and direct contact with gene promoters as biological constraints. We conducted retrospective analyses of three GIANT BMI GWAS efforts using ATAC-seq and promoter-focused Capture C data from human adipocytes and ESC-derived hypothalamic-like neurons. This approach, with its extremely low false positive rate, identified 15 loci at P<5x10-5 in the 2010 GWAS, 13 of which achieved genome-wide significance by 2018, including at NAV1, MTIF3 and ADCY3. 80% of constrained 2015 loci achieved genome-wide significance in 2018. We observed similar results in waist-to-hip ratio analyses. In conclusion, biological constraints on sub-significant GWAS signals can reveal potentially true-positive loci for further investigation in existing datasets without increasing sample size.

Data availability

Adipose ATAC-seq and promoter-focused capture C data is available in GEO under accession number GSE164912Hypothalamic Neuron ATAC-eq and promoter-focused capture C data is the subject of another atlas-based manuscript currently under peer review and through that process that dataset will be made available once the paper is published- the corresponding hypothalamus preprint can be found at: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.06.146951v1.full

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Reza K Hammond

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Matthew C Pahl

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Chun Su

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Diana L Cousminer

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Michelle E Leonard

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Sumei Lu

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Claudia A Doege

    Division of Molecular Genetics (Pediatrics) and the Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Yadav Wagley

    Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Kenyaita M Hodge

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Chiara Lasconi

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4684-704X
  11. Matthew E Johnson

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. James A Pippin

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Kurt D Hankenson

    Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Rudolph L Leibel

    Division of Molecular Genetics (Pediatrics) and the Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Alessandra Chesi

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Division of Human Genetics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Andrew D Wells

    Center for Spatial and Functional Genomics, Department of Pathology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Struan FA Grant

    Division of Human Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    grants@email.chop.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2025-5302

Funding

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD056465)

  • Struan FA Grant

National Human Genome Research Institute (R01-HG010067)

  • Struan FA Grant

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Daniel B. Burke Endowed Chair for Diabetes Research)

  • Struan FA Grant

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2021, Hammond et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,772
    views
  • 211
    downloads
  • 42
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Reza K Hammond
  2. Matthew C Pahl
  3. Chun Su
  4. Diana L Cousminer
  5. Michelle E Leonard
  6. Sumei Lu
  7. Claudia A Doege
  8. Yadav Wagley
  9. Kenyaita M Hodge
  10. Chiara Lasconi
  11. Matthew E Johnson
  12. James A Pippin
  13. Kurt D Hankenson
  14. Rudolph L Leibel
  15. Alessandra Chesi
  16. Andrew D Wells
  17. Struan FA Grant
(2021)
Biological constraints on GWAS SNPs at suggestive significance thresholds reveal additional BMI loci
eLife 10:e62206.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62206

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62206

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Gaetan De Waele, Gerben Menschaert, Willem Waegeman
    Research Article

    Timely and effective use of antimicrobial drugs can improve patient outcomes, as well as help safeguard against resistance development. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is currently routinely used in clinical diagnostics for rapid species identification. Mining additional data from said spectra in the form of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles is, therefore, highly promising. Such AMR profiles could serve as a drop-in solution for drastically improving treatment efficiency, effectiveness, and costs. This study endeavors to develop the first machine learning models capable of predicting AMR profiles for the whole repertoire of species and drugs encountered in clinical microbiology. The resulting models can be interpreted as drug recommender systems for infectious diseases. We find that our dual-branch method delivers considerably higher performance compared to previous approaches. In addition, experiments show that the models can be efficiently fine-tuned to data from other clinical laboratories. MALDI-TOF-based AMR recommender systems can, hence, greatly extend the value of MALDI-TOF MS for clinical diagnostics. All code supporting this study is distributed on PyPI and is packaged at https://github.com/gdewael/maldi-nn.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Sanjarbek Hudaiberdiev, Ivan Ovcharenko
    Research Article

    Enhancers and promoters are classically considered to be bound by a small set of transcription factors (TFs) in a sequence-specific manner. This assumption has come under increasing skepticism as the datasets of ChIP-seq assays of TFs have expanded. In particular, high-occupancy target (HOT) loci attract hundreds of TFs with often no detectable correlation between ChIP-seq peaks and DNA-binding motif presence. Here, we used a set of 1003 TF ChIP-seq datasets (HepG2, K562, H1) to analyze the patterns of ChIP-seq peak co-occurrence in combination with functional genomics datasets. We identified 43,891 HOT loci forming at the promoter (53%) and enhancer (47%) regions. HOT promoters regulate housekeeping genes, whereas HOT enhancers are involved in tissue-specific process regulation. HOT loci form the foundation of human super-enhancers and evolve under strong negative selection, with some of these loci being located in ultraconserved regions. Sequence-based classification analysis of HOT loci suggested that their formation is driven by the sequence features, and the density of mapped ChIP-seq peaks across TF-bound loci correlates with sequence features and the expression level of flanking genes. Based on the affinities to bind to promoters and enhancers we detected five distinct clusters of TFs that form the core of the HOT loci. We report an abundance of HOT loci in the human genome and a commitment of 51% of all TF ChIP-seq binding events to HOT locus formation thus challenging the classical model of enhancer activity and propose a model of HOT locus formation based on the existence of large transcriptional condensates.