SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Informing disease modelling with brain-relevant functional genomic annotations.

Brain · 2019-12-01

DOI: 10.1093/brain/awz295PMID: 31603214

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; review-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The past decade has seen a surge in the number of disease/trait-associated variants, largely because of the union of studies to share genetic data and the availability of electronic health records from large cohorts for research use. Variant discovery for neurological and neuropsychiatric genome-wide association studies, including schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, has greatly benefitted; however, the translation of these genetic association results to interpretable biological mechanisms and models is lagging. Interpreting disease-associated variants requires knowledge of gene regulatory mechanisms and computational tools that permit integration of this knowledge with genome-wide association study results. Here, we summarize key conceptual advances in the generation of brain-relevant functional genomic annotations and amongst tools that allow integration of these annotations with association summary statistics, which together provide a new and exciting opportunity to identify disease-relevant genes, pathways and cell types in silico. We discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with these developments and conclude with our perspective on future advances in annotation generation, tool development and the union of the two.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.