MOTIVATION: Determining the functional impact of non-coding disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is challenging. Many of these SNPs are likely to be regulatory SNPs (rSNPs): variations which affect the ability of a transcription factor (TF) to bind to DNA. However, experimental procedures for identifying rSNPs are expensive and labour intensive. Therefore, in silico methods are required for rSNP prediction. By scoring two alleles with a TF position weight matrix (PWM), it can be determined which SNPs are likely rSNPs. However, predictions in this manner are noisy and no method exists that determines the statistical significance of a nucleotide variation on a PWM score. RESULTS: We have designed an algorithm for in silico rSNP detection called is-rSNP. We employ novel convolution methods to determine the complete distributions of PWM scores and ratios between allele scores, facilitating assignment of statistical significance to rSNP effects. We have tested our method on 41 experimentally verified rSNPs, correctly predicting the disrupted TF in 28 cases. We also analysed 146 disease-associated SNPs with no known functional impact in an attempt to identify candidate rSNPs. Of the 11 significantly predicted disrupted TFs, 9 had previous evidence of being associated with the disease in the literature. These results demonstrate that is-rSNP is suitable for high-throughput screening of SNPs for potential regulatory function. This is a useful and important tool in the interpretation of GWAS. AVAILABILITY: is-rSNP software is available for use at: www.genomics.csse.unimelb.edu.au/is-rSNP.
MOTIVATION: Determining the functional impact of non-coding disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is challenging. Many of these SNPs are likely to be regulatory SNPs (rSNPs): variations which affect the ability of a transcription factor (TF) to bind to DNA. However, experimental procedures for identifying rSNPs are expensive and labour intensive. Therefore, in silico methods are required for rSNP prediction. By scoring two alleles with a TF position weight matrix (PWM), it can be determined which SNPs are likely rSNPs. However, predictions in this manner are noisy and no method exists that determines the statistical significance of a nucleotide variation on a PWM score. RESULTS: We have designed an algorithm for in silico rSNP detection called is-rSNP. We employ novel convolution methods to determine the complete distributions of PWM scores and ratios between allele scores, facilitating assignment of statistical significance to rSNP effects. We have tested our method on 41 experimentally verified rSNPs, correctly predicting the disrupted TF in 28 cases. We also analysed 146 disease-associated SNPs with no known functional impact in an attempt to identify candidate rSNPs. Of the 11 significantly predicted disrupted TFs, 9 had previous evidence of being associated with the disease in the literature. These results demonstrate that is-rSNP is suitable for high-throughput screening of SNPs for potential regulatory function. This is a useful and important tool in the interpretation of GWAS. AVAILABILITY: is-rSNP software is available for use at: www.genomics.csse.unimelb.edu.au/is-rSNP.
Authors: D Hacking; J C Knight; K Rockett; H Brown; J Frampton; D P Kwiatkowski; J Hull; I A Udalova Journal: Genes Immun Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.676
Authors: P Wintermeyer; O Riess; L Schöls; H Przuntek; B Miterski; J T Epplen; R Krüger Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Melissa J Fullwood; Mei Hui Liu; You Fu Pan; Jun Liu; Han Xu; Yusoff Bin Mohamed; Yuriy L Orlov; Stoyan Velkov; Andrea Ho; Poh Huay Mei; Elaine G Y Chew; Phillips Yao Hui Huang; Willem-Jan Welboren; Yuyuan Han; Hong Sain Ooi; Pramila N Ariyaratne; Vinsensius B Vega; Yanquan Luo; Peck Yean Tan; Pei Ye Choy; K D Senali Abayratna Wansa; Bing Zhao; Kar Sian Lim; Shi Chi Leow; Jit Sin Yow; Roy Joseph; Haixia Li; Kartiki V Desai; Jane S Thomsen; Yew Kok Lee; R Krishna Murthy Karuturi; Thoreau Herve; Guillaume Bourque; Hendrik G Stunnenberg; Xiaoan Ruan; Valere Cacheux-Rataboul; Wing-Kin Sung; Edison T Liu; Chia-Lin Wei; Edwin Cheung; Yijun Ruan Journal: Nature Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: V Matys; O V Kel-Margoulis; E Fricke; I Liebich; S Land; A Barre-Dirrie; I Reuter; D Chekmenev; M Krull; K Hornischer; N Voss; P Stegmaier; B Lewicki-Potapov; H Saxel; A E Kel; E Wingender Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Jacquelyn L Sikora; Mark W Logue; Gloria G Chan; Brian H Spencer; Tatiana B Prokaeva; Clinton T Baldwin; David C Seldin; Lawreen H Connors Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Luciano Pirola; Aneta Balcerczyk; Richard W Tothill; Izhak Haviv; Antony Kaspi; Sebastian Lunke; Mark Ziemann; Tom Karagiannis; Stephen Tonna; Adam Kowalczyk; Bryan Beresford-Smith; Geoff Macintyre; Ma Kelong; Zhang Hongyu; Jingde Zhu; Assam El-Osta Journal: Genome Res Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Sierra S Nishizaki; Natalie Ng; Shengcheng Dong; Robert S Porter; Cody Morterud; Colten Williams; Courtney Asman; Jessica A Switzenberg; Alan P Boyle Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Irina V Chadaeva; Mikhail P Ponomarenko; Dmitry A Rasskazov; Ekaterina B Sharypova; Elena V Kashina; Marina Yu Matveeva; Tatjana V Arshinova; Petr M Ponomarenko; Olga V Arkova; Natalia P Bondar; Ludmila K Savinkova; Nikolay A Kolchanov Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.969