Skip to main content

Table 1 Functional enrichment analysis of pleiotropy score

From: HOPS: a quantitative score reveals pervasive horizontal pleiotropy in human genetic variation is driven by extreme polygenicity of human traits and diseases

   

\( {P}_m^{\mathrm{LD}} \)

\( {P}_n^{\mathrm{LD}} \)

Variant effect predictor

 

UTR

+ 0.24 (± 0.01); P = 1.72 × 10− 234

+ 0.69 (± 0.02); P = 2.16 × 10− 236

Coding synonymous

+ 0.24 (± 0.01); P = 2.49 × 10− 99

+ 0.61 (± 0.03); P = 1.92 × 10− 76

Non-synonymous

+ 0.19 (± 0.01); P = 3.82 × 10− 82

+ 0.48 (± 0.03); P = 3.62 × 10− 62

Roadmap Epigenomics

 

H327ac

+ 0.20 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 0.54 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

H3K27me3

+ 0.02 (± 0.01); P = 1.40 × 10− 18

+ 0.01 (± 0.01); P = 0.4

Active TSS

+ 0.20 (± 0.02); P = 1.42 × 10− 36

+ 0.54 (± 0.04); P = 8.56 × 10− 34

Promoter

Promoter Upstream TSS

+ 0.16 (± 0.01); P = 4.44 × 10− 130

+ 0.43 (± 0.02); P = 4.33 × 10− 103

Promoter Downstream TSS 1

+ 0.35 (± 0.01); P = 1.87 × 10− 220

+ 0.92 (± 0.03); P = 3.59 × 10− 197

Promoter Downstream TSS 2

+ 0.30 (± 0.01); P = 2.70 × 10− 203

+ 0.86 (± 0.03); P = 3.44 × 10− 210

Transcription

Transcribed - 5′ preferential

+ 0.29 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 0.88 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

Strong transcription

+ 0.38 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 1.10 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

Transcribed - 3′ preferential

+ 0.29 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 0.82 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

Weak transcription

+ 0.21 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 0.60 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

Transcription and regulation

Transcribed and regulatory (Prom/Enh)

+ 0.36 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 1.00 (± 0.02); P < 10− 308

Transcribed 5′ preferential and Enh

+ 0.35 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 1.00 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

Transcribed 3′ preferential and Enh

+ 0.33 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 0.92 (± 0.02); P < 10− 308

Transcribed and Weak Enhancer

+ 0.32 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 0.97 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

Active enhancer

Active Enhancer 1

+ 0.13 (± 0.01); P = 4.54 × 10− 295

+ 0.32 (± 0.01); P = 5.1 × 10− 216

Active Enhancer 2

+ 0.11 (± 0.01); P = 2.64 × 10− 294

+ 0.28 (± 0.01); P = 5.63 × 10− 238

Active Enhancer Flank

+ 0.11 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 0.29 (± 0.01); P = 6.06 × 10− 270

Weak enhancer

Weak Enhancer 1

+ 0.07 (± 0.01); P = 2.79 × 10− 89

+ 0.16 (± 0.01); P = 6.89 × 10− 60

Weak Enhancer 2

+ 0.08 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

+ 0.23 (± 0.01); P = 6.52 × 10− 291

Primary H3K27ac possible Enhancer

+ 0.09 (± 0.01); P = 2.72 × 10− 259

+ 0.24 (± 0.01); P = 1.53 × 10− 187

 

Primary DNase

+ 0.03 (± 0.01); P = 3.83 × 10− 21

+ 0.05 (± 0.01); P = 1.11 × 10− 7

ZNF genes & repeats

+ 0.08 (± 0.01); P = 1.29 × 10− 7

+ 0.20 (± 0.04); P = 6.9 × 10− 7

Heterochromatin

− 0. 20 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

− 0.61 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

Poised Promoter

+ 0.05 (± 0.01); P = 1.03 × 10− 35

+ 0.09 (± 0.01); P = 2.27 × 10− 16

Bivalent Promoter

+ 0.17 (± 0.01); P = 1.28 × 10− 93

+ 0.51 (± 0.03); P = 6.29 × 10− 88

Repressed Polycomb

+ 0.04 (± 0.01); P = 5.77 × 10− 42

+ 0.06 (± 0.01); P = 1.48 × 10− 11

Quiescent/Low

−0.41 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

−1.20 (± 0.01); P < 10− 308

GTEx - number of genes the variant is an eQTL for

 

eGenes< 10

+ 0.11 (± 0.01); P = 6.78 × 10− 186

+ 0.28 (± 0.01); P = 1.04 × 10− 140

eGenes> 10 & < 15

+ 0.19 (± 0.01); P = 4.72 × 10− 114

+ 0.52 (± 0.02); P = 6.84 × 10− 99

eGenes> 15 & < 20

+ 0.31 (± 0.02); P = 7.98 × 10− 52

+ 0.88 (± 0.06); P = 5.38 × 10− 47

eGenes> 20

+ 0.66 (± 0.06); P = 3.40 × 10− 27

+ 2.07 (± 0.18); P = 1.35 × 10− 30

GTEx - number of tissues the variant is an eQTL for

 

eTissue< 30

+ 0.10 (± 0.01); P = 1.84 × 10− 151

+ 0.26 (± 0.01); P = 1.26 × 10− 114

eTissue> 30 & < 35

+ 0.21 (± 0.01); P = 3.70 × 10− 187

+ 0.54 (± 0.02); P = 6.80 × 10− 147

eTissue> 35 & < 40

+ 0.36 (± 0.02); P = 1.11 × 10− 82

+ 1.13 (± 0.06); P = 4.24 × 10− 92

eTissue> 40

+ 0.35 (± 0.05); P = 2,42 × 10− 13

+ 0.97 (± 0.14); P = 7.08 × 10− 12

International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium

 

Phenotypes > 1

+ 0.06 (± 0.01); P = 1.91 × 10− 6

+ 0.19 (± 0.04); P = 2.70 × 10− 7

Saccharomyces cerevisiae Morphological Database

 

Phenotypes > 1

+ 0.09 (± 0.01); P = 4.48 × 10− 17

+ 0.26 (± 0.03); P = 1.53 × 10− 18

  1. We grouped variants by (i) molecular function as annotated by Ensembl, (ii) predicted chromatin state as annotated by the NIH Roadmap Epigenomics Project, (iii) transcriptional effects as annotated by the NIH Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTex) Project, and (iv) effects on model organism phenotypes as annotated by the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC) and Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Morphological Database (SCMD). For each grouping, we computed the mean LD-corrected pleiotropy score and used two-sample Student’s t test to determine whether the mean was significantly different from the baseline. We found (i) that coding regions have higher pleiotropy scores than noncoding regions, (ii) that active promoters and enhancers have the highest pleiotropy scores and quiescent and heterochromatin have the lowest, (iii) that variants that control expression of more genes in more tissues have higher pleiotropy scores, and (iv) that genes associated with more than one model organism phenotype have higher pleiotropy scores