Skip to main content
Download PDF

FORGEdb: a tool for identifying candidate functional variants and uncovering target genes and mechanisms for complex diseases

Genome Biology volume 25, Article number: 3 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

The majority of disease-associated variants identified through genome-wide association studies are located outside of protein-coding regions. Prioritizing candidate regulatory variants and gene targets to identify potential biological mechanisms for further functional experiments can be challenging. To address this challenge, we developed FORGEdb (https://forgedb.cancer.gov/; https://forge2.altiusinstitute.org/files/forgedb.html; and https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5281/zenodo.10067458), a standalone and web-based tool that integrates multiple datasets, delivering information on associated regulatory elements, transcription factor binding sites, and target genes for over 37 million variants. FORGEdb scores provide researchers with a quantitative assessment of the relative importance of each variant for targeted functional experiments.

Background

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been remarkably successful in identifying genetic loci associated with many different diseases and traits [1]. As of the end of 2022, the GWAS catalog comprised > 232,000 distinct variants associated with > 3000 diseases and traits [2]. Many loci identified from GWAS are intergenic, locating to non-protein-coding regions of the genome [3]. Although the functional mechanisms of some variants have been reported [4], most genomic loci have not been carefully studied and little is known regarding target genes, pathways, or mechanisms of action. Multiple reports suggest that GWAS variants are overrepresented in sequences that regulate gene expression [3, 5, 6]. Several studies have shown enrichment for GWAS variants in cell- and tissue-specific regulatory elements [3, 5, 7, 8].

To aid interpretation of GWAS variants in the context of gene regulation, researchers have used large-scale mapping data for enhancers and other regulatory elements from ENCODE [9], Roadmap Epigenomics [6], and BLUEPRINT [10]. Several webtools, such as HaploReg [11], RegulomeDB [12], and others (reviewed in [13]), have been developed to help researchers link these data to individual variants. However, these methods do not include high-dimensional ENCODE data from contemporary technologies, such as Hi-C [14], or expanded expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) data from large consortia, such as the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx) [15] or the eQTLGen project [16]. Gathering relevant information from many different data sources and linking the data to individual genetic variants can be challenging in terms of computational resources, data processing, quality control, and reproducibility.

Results

To address this issue and provide researchers with a state-of-the-art web tool for variant annotation that includes these updated resources, we developed FORGEdb (https://forgedb.cancer.gov/, Table 1). FORGEdb incorporates a range of datasets covering three broad areas relating to gene regulation: regulatory elements, transcription factor (TF) binding, and target genes. First, using genome-wide epigenomic track data from ENCODE [9], Roadmap Epigenomics [6], and BLUEPRINT [10] consortia, FORGEdb links SNPs with data for candidate regulatory elements (e.g., enhancers, promoters and other regulatory element classes). Specifically, FORGEdb annotates variants for overlap with DNase I hotspots, histone mark broadPeaks, and chromatin states across a wide range of cell and tissue types. Second, within these candidate regulatory elements, FORGEdb integrates SNPs with transcription factor (TF) binding data via (a) overlap with TF motifs and (b) SNP-specific Contextual Analysis of TF Occupancy (CATO) scores, which provide a complementary line of evidence for TF binding computed from allele-specific TF occupancy data measured by DNase I footprinting [17]. Third, FORGEdb links SNPs to target genes by providing (a) the overlap between SNPs and enhancer-to-promoter looping regions (or other looping regions) using Activity-By-Contact (ABC) data [18] and (b) allele-specific expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) annotations using large-scale data from GTEx [15] and eQTLGen [16]. In addition, FORGEdb includes annotations from datasets that aid interpretation of protein-coding changes. Specifically, it includes allele-specific Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD) scores, which measure the deleteriousness of SNPs using experimental data and simulated mutations [19]. Moreover, FORGEdb includes the latest sequence conservation data from the Zoonomia project [20] and ENCODE4 CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) regulatory element single guide RNA (sgRNA) sequences and other data [21]. By amalgamating these datasets into a single resource, FORGEdb offers an expanded set of annotations and a more comprehensive evaluation of individual variants beyond what is provided by other commonly used webtools (Table 1) [11,12,13].

Table 1 A comparison of features across FORGEdb, HaploReg and RegulomeDB
Full size table

To summarize the regulatory annotations and prioritize genetic variants for functional validation, we created a new scoring system for SNPs, combining all annotations relating to gene regulation into a single score called a FORGEdb score. Our objective was to create scores that were accessible and readily interpretable to researchers while emphasizing transparency. In order to ensure that no single annotation or dataset would dominate or skew the scoring system, leading to bias, we adopted a points-based method that evaluates each distinct experimental or technological approach separately. FORGEdb scores are computed based on the presence or absence of 5 independent lines of evidence for regulatory function:

  1. 1.

    DNase I hotspot, marking accessible chromatin (2 points)

  2. 2.

    Histone mark ChIP-seq broadPeak, denoting different regulatory states (2 points)

  3. 3.

    TF motif (1 point) and CATO score (1 point), marking potential TF binding

  4. 4.

    Activity-by-contact (ABC) interaction, indicating gene looping (2 points)

  5. 5.

    Expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL), demonstrating an association with gene expression (2 points)

These five lines of experimental evidence were chosen based on likelihood of providing an indication of biological function, availability of high-quality data across multiple tissues, and offering a distinct line of experimental information. To prioritize variants at a large scale for functional studies, it is critical to examine multiple different lines of experimental evidence to gain a comprehensive picture of potential biological mechanisms. It is also important to include datasets that have employed an agnostic approach and are not targeted to a specific gene(s) or genomic region(s) or limited to a single tissue type, which could introduce bias.

FORGEdb scores were calculated by summing the number of points across all lines of evidence present for each SNP, and range between 0 and 10. A score of 9 or 10 suggests a large amount of evidence for functional impact, whereas 0 or 1 indicate a low amount of evidence. For example, there is evidence for eQTLs (for IRX3 and FTO), chromatin looping, TF motifs, DNase I hotspots, and histone mark broadPeaks for rs1421085, a SNP previously identified for obesity [22] (Fig. 1). Together, these annotations provide strong evidence for a regulatory role for this SNP with a FORGEdb score of 9. This high FORGEdb score for rs1421085 is consistent with independent experimental analyses that have demonstrated a regulatory role for this SNP, with IRX3 being a key target gene [4].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Example FORGEdb results for rs1421085. For this SNP, there is evidence for eQTL associations (with IRX3 and FTO), chromatin looping (ABC interactions), overlap with significant TF motifs, and DNase I hotspot overlap, as well as overlap with histone mark broadPeaks. The only regulatory dataset that this SNP does not have evidence for is for CATO score (1 point). The resulting FORGEdb score for rs1421085 is therefore 9 = 2 (eQTL) + 2 (ABC) + 1 (TF motif) + 2 (DNase I hotspot) + 2 (histone mark ChIP-seq). Independent experimental analyses by Claussnitzer et al. have demonstrated a regulatory role for this SNP in the control of white vs. beige adipocyte proliferation via IRX3/IRX5 [4]

Full size image

To assess the potential utility of FORGEdb scores across different traits/diseases analyzed by GWAS, we obtained summary statistics from published studies of 30 traits/diseases (Methods) [2, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45] and evaluated the correlation between FORGEdb scores and the ranking of SNPs by association p-value in each GWAS. Specifically, we binned the SNPs according to their association -log10 p-value and estimated the mean FORGEdb score for each bin. Results revealed a significant positive correlation between mean FORGEdb score and ranked SNP bins across all 30 phenotypes, with more significant p-values corresponding to higher FORGEdb scores (Fig. 2 and Additional file 1, median correlation = 0.845, range 0.55 to 0.98). Further, to evaluate FORGEdb scores in fine-mapping studies, which can identify sets of variants more likely to be functional, we compared FORGEdb scores for variants from statistically-derived 95% credible sets with reported top SNPs from the same published study [46]. We discovered a significant overrepresentation of higher FORGEdb scores in the 95% credible sets (t-test p-value = 0.002). These findings demonstrate that FORGEdb scores correlate with GWAS associations and are significantly associated with GWAS 95% credible sets, and may therefore show utility for prioritizing SNPs across a wide range of human traits and diseases, from common traits such as brown hair color and height to complex diseases like schizophrenia and lung cancer.

Fig. 2
figure 2

FORGEdb score (average, y-axis) versus GWAS -log10 (p-value) (x-axis) across 30 GWAS. Each colored point shows the FORGEdb score average across all GWAS SNPs at each p-value cutoff. Each grey point shows the FORGEdb score average across background SNPs (same minor allele frequency). From top left to bottom right: venous thrombosis (cor = 0.87), hair color (cor = 0.89), melanoma (cor = 0.95), colon cancer (cor = 0.77), LDL (cor = 0.81), fasting insulin (cor = 0.55), prostate cancer (cor = 0.78), diastolic blood pressure (cor = 0.82), systolic blood pressure (cor = 0.80), neutrophil cell count (cor = 0.82), eosinophil cell count (cor = 0.81), lymphocyte cell count (cor = 0.82), monocyte cell count (cor = 0.84), white blood cell count (cor = 0.83), basophil cell count (cor = 0.85), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, cor = 0.79), major depressive disorder (MDD, cor = 0.59), autism (cor = 0.96), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, cor = 0.89), breast cancer (cor = 0.79), lung cancer (cor = 0.90), schizophrenia (cor = 0.98), rheumatoid arthritis (cor = 0.86), Alzheimer’s disease (cor = 0.86), type 2 diabetes (cor = 0.88), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD, cor = 0.85), body mass index (cor = 0.96), red blood cell count (cor = 0.77), height (cor = 0.86), and waist-to-hip ratio (cor = 0.90)

Full size image

To further assess the utility of FORGEdb scores in identifying potential functional variants, we examined the relationship between FORGEdb scores and expression-modulating variants (emVars), which are candidate functional variants prioritized from massively parallel reporter assays (MPRAs). We used emVar data from Tewhey et al. [47], who evaluated 39,487 variants using MPRAs, identifying 248 variants that had a high effect on gene expression. Comparing these 248 emVars with 37 million FORGEdb variants revealed a significant overrepresentation of emVars in higher FORGEdb scores (paired t-test p-value = 0.005, Fig. 3a, b). This suggests that variants with higher FORGEdb scores may more likely be functional and that FORGEdb scores are likely well-suited for prioritizing variants in MPRAs and other massively parallel experiments. Moreover, emVars exhibited significantly higher FORGEdb scores than 39,487 candidate MPRA variants from the same study (paired t-test p-value = 0.004), suggesting that FORGEdb scores add further information not present in previous variant prioritization methods. Additional comparisons with saturation mutagenesis MPRA data from Kircher et al. [48] (Fig. 3c, paired t-test p-value = 0.00974) and RegulomeDB scores across both MPRA datasets (Fig. 3d, e) further support these findings and indicate potential utility for FORGEdb scores in variant prioritization efforts for MPRAs and other massively parallel experiments.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Variants identified from massively parallel reporter assays (MPRAs) are overrepresented in top FORGEdb scores. Shown here are (A) the number of expression-modulating variants (emVars) per 1000 SNPs (divisor, y-axis) for each FORGEdb score bin (0–10) (x-axis), (B) a histogram of FORGEdb scores for emVars (orange) and 37 million SNPs available in FORGEdb (blue), (C) a histogram of FORGEdb scores for p < 0.001 MPRA variants from Kircher et al. (orange) and 37 million SNPs available in FORGEdb (blue), (D) a bar chart of FORGEdb scores (orange) and RegulomeDB (RDB) scores for p < 0.000001 emVars (blue), and (E) a bar chart of FORGEdb scores (orange) and RegulomeDB scores for p < 0.05 MPRA variants for which both a FORGEdb score and a RegulomeDB score is available from Kircher et al. (blue)

Full size image

Discussion

FORGEdb exhibits several strengths and limitations. Although FORGEdb contains data on TF motifs and CATO scores for allele-specific DNase-seq-based TF binding, it does not have data on chromatin accessibility quantitative trait loci (caQTL), which are a similar dataset present in RegulomeDB. Additionally, even though FORGEdb includes recent conservation scores from the Zoonomia project, it does not include information on sequence constraint from SiPhy, which is present in HaploReg. Despite these limitations, FORGEdb remains a valuable resource for researchers seeking a comprehensive and integrated platform to annotate SNPs and interpret functional elements in the genome, particularly within the context of gene regulation and allele-specific effects.

FORGEdb has several strengths. Leveraging many different annotations, as well as its own SNP scoring system, FORGEdb facilitates a comprehensive analysis of variants and their regulatory context. It utilizes different types of DNase-seq and histone mark data to provide a deeper understanding of genomic regulatory landscapes. An additional distinctive feature of FORGEdb is its integration of 3D genomic data, specifically ABC Hi-C-based data, which permits the exploration of complex chromatin interactions, as well as genome editing resources (CRISPR regulatory element sgRNAs). Furthermore, FORGEdb incorporates CADD scores, providing further information about the potential deleterious effects of variant alleles. CADD scores, along with CATO scores, and allele-specific association data from GTEx and eQTLGen enable researchers to explore allele-specific effects in the context of genomic functionality. Neither ABC nor CADD scores nor CRISPR sgRNAs are available in RegulomeDB or HaploReg. In addition, FORGEdb scores correspond with functional significance based on MPRA data and may potentially be more informative for evaluating functional significance than probability scores provided in RegulomeDB.

Conclusions

In summary, FORGEdb is a new web-based tool to aid the interpretation and prioritization of genetic variants for experimental analysis. FORGEdb includes a number of features from novel technologies not available in commonly used webtools, providing a more comprehensive analysis of potential regulatory function [11,12,13]. All of these features are accessible via a simple, easy-to-use search engine that can be found at https://forgedb.cancer.gov/ and https://forge2.altiusinstitute.org/files/forgedb.html. Annotations from FORGEdb can be accessed from https://ldlink.nih.gov/?tab=ldproxy, https://ldlink.nih.gov/?tab=ldassoc, https://ldlink.nih.gov/?tab=ldmatrix, and https://forge2.altiusinstitute.org/ [5, 49, 50].

Methods

Databases used in FORGEdb

FORGEdb standalone first annotates variants for positional overlap with DNase I hotspots, histone mark broadPeaks, and chromatin states across a wide range of cell and tissue types as implemented in FORGE2 [5]. Second, FORGEdb annotates variants for Activity-By-Contact (ABC) data (as implemented in Fulco et al.) [18], Contextual Analysis of TF Occupancy (CATO) scores as implemented by Maurano et al. [17], CADD scores as implemented by Rentzsch et al. [19], sequence conservation data from the Zoonomia project [20], TF motifs as implemented in FORGE2-TF (https://forge2-tf.altiusinstitute.org/ and https://analysistools.cancer.gov/forge2-tf/#/forge2-tf), significant eQTLs from GTEx [15] and eQTLGen [16], ENCODE4 regulatory element CRISPR sgRNAs from the ENCODE4 multi-center study computed via GuideScan2 [21, 51], and closest gene from RefSeq [52].

FORGEdb scores

For all variants, we generated a FORGEdb score to reflect the extent of experimental evidence supporting possible functional significance. The objective was to ensure that FORGEdb scores were accessible to a wide array of researchers while emphasizing transparency and interpretability. A points-based system was applied to encompass a broad spectrum of experimental evidence from diverse data sources and to limit bias toward any particular line of evidence.

In creating the FORGEdb scores, we focused on datasets covering major areas of regulatory genomics with high-quality data across multiple tissues, identifying five key types of experimental evidence:

  1. 1)

    Chromatin accessibility. Evidence of chromatin accessibility, which is important for gene regulation, was assessed based on positional overlap with DNase I hotspots from the Roadmap Epigenomics consortium, ENCODE and BLUEPRINT, as analyzed in FORGE2 [5, 6, 9, 10]

  2. 2)

    Histone marks. Evidence for positional overlap with histone marks was assessed using broadPeak ChIP-seq data from the consolidated Roadmap H3-all dataset, which covers the 5 main histone marks analyzed across the main Roadmap tissue set (H3K4me1, H3K4me3, H3K36me3, H3K9me3, H3K27me3) [6]

  3. 3)

    Activity-by-contact (ABC) 3D genomics interactions. Evidence of ABC 3D genomics interactions, predictive of target gene looping, was assessed using positional overlap with ABC regions [18]

  4. 4)

    Differential gene expression. Evidence of allelic associations with gene expression were assessed using expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) data from GTEx and eQTLGen [15, 16]

  5. 5)

    Transcription factors. Evidence of potential alteration of transcription factor binding was assessed by positional overlap with transcription factor (TF) motifs from FORGE2-TF (https://analysistools.cancer.gov/forge2-tf/#/forge2-tf and https://forge2-tf.altiusinstitute.org/) and Contextual Analysis of TF Occupancy (CATO) scores [17], which provide a measure of allele-specific associations with TF binding for a wide array of TFs

Equal weights (2 points each) were assigned to each line of evidence to prevent bias originating from any one approach. Resulting points were then added to provide a final FORGEdb score ranging from 0 to 10. When we applied this scoring system to 37 million variants, we observed an approximately normal distribution (Fig. 3b). We further validated the scoring system by assessing it against MPRA data, providing additional support for its alignment with functional significance.

Allele-specific and regional data

FORGEdb provides a range of functional genomic annotations that can be categorized as based on positional overlap (e.g., the variant is located in a genomic region demarcated by the annotation) or variant-level features (e.g., allelic differences at the locus are associated with a particular feature). Among the regional overlap features, FORGEdb includes ABC data, CRISPR regulatory element sgRNAs, TF motifs, DNase I hotspots, and histone mark broadpeaks, offering insight into genomic context. Variant-level features, such as GTEx and QTLGen eQTL datasets, CATO scores, Zoonomia PhyloP scores, and CADD scores, provide allele-specific information. Collectively, these annotations in FORGEdb contribute to a comprehensive understanding of allele-specific effects and regional genomic context for individual SNPs.

Accessing FORGEdb

FORGEdb is available via web browser (https://forgedb.cancer.gov/ and https://forge2.altiusinstitute.org/files/forgedb.html). A programmatic interface to FORGEdb has been developed via CRAN package LDlinkR (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/LDlinkR/index.html), and API instructions are at https://forgedb.cancer.gov/api-access. FORGEdb code is available under the MIT license from https://github.com/CBIIT/nci-webtools-dceg-forgedb and https://github.com/charlesbreeze/FORGEdb. FORGEdb constituent databases can be downloaded from https://github.com/CBIIT/nci-webtools-dceg-forgedb#building-and-hosting-the-api, and FORGEdb scores can be downloaded from Zenodo at https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5281/zenodo.10067458.

Example analysis

An example FORGEdb analysis is available at https://forgedb.cancer.gov/explore?rsid=rs12203592, with a complementary example at https://forge2.altiusinstitute.org/files/rs1421/summary.table.rs1421085.html. A description of FORGEdb scores is available at https://forgedb.cancer.gov/about/. A brief computational description of FORGEdb is available at https://github.com/CBIIT/nci-webtools-dceg-forgedb.

Regenerating FORGEdb pages

To regenerate FORGEdb pages, we provide guidelines and code at https://github.com/CBIIT/nci-webtools-dceg-forgedb. Updated information on web server installation is available at https://github.com/CBIIT/nci-webtools-dceg-forgedb#building-and-hosting-the-api.

Integration with summary statistics

Although FORGEdb does include blood cis-eQTL data from a large consortium, eQTLGen, offering additional information beyond GTEx, the FORGEdb webtool does not currently conduct colocalization analyses and thus does not compute the posterior probability of a variant affecting gene expression for a given GWAS. Regarding applications for summary statistics, we recommend modeling analysis in R using FORGEdb scores computed across over 37 million variants, which are scaled between 0 and 10 and are available for download at Zenodo at https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5281/zenodo.10067458 (RSID.scores file), to facilitate integration and joint analysis of summary statistics and FORGEdb scores.

Analysis of MPRA and GWAS data

To validate the utility of FORGEdb scores, we analyzed MPRA emVar data and publicly available GWAS data. For analysis of MPRA emVar data, we downloaded the SNP information from table S1 (39,478 ref/alt pairs tested by MPRA) and S2 (emVars) of Tewhey et al. [47]. We computed FORGEdb SNP scores for all 248 reported emVars and the other 39,478 SNPs evaluated in the manuscript. We then compared the FORGEdb scores for the emVars with the other evaluated SNPs and 37 million SNPs available in FORGEdb.

For analysis of Kircher et al. MPRA data, we downloaded the hg38 MPRA information from https://kircherlab.bihealth.org/satMutMPRA/ [48]. We then generated FORGEdb scores for variants with MPRA p < 0.001. We also integrated RegulomeDB scores with variants, which resulted in a reduced number of intersecting SNPs across all scores, so for this second comparison, we focused on variants at p < 0.05. We then plotted FORGEdb scores for the first set of variants alongside scores of background SNPs available in FORGEdb, and then plotted FORGEdb scores and RegulomeDB scores for the second set of variants.

For analysis of GWAS data across 30 disease/traits, we downloaded GWAS summary statistics from OpenGWAS [24] and other sources [2, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Ethnicities analyzed in these GWAS include African American/Afro-Caribbean, East Asian, and European. For each GWAS, we computed FORGEdb scores across all variants and then computed the average score at different p-value thresholds. Published 95% credible sets for a coronary heart disease GWAS were obtained from van der Harst et al. [46]. Plotting and statistical analyses were conducted in R [53].

Contact

For any questions or information contact c.breeze@ucl.ac.uk.

Availability of data and materials

Data obtention

ENCODE, BLUEPRINT, and Roadmap Epigenomics DNase I hotspot files, Roadmap Epigenomics BroadPeak Histone mark files, HMM Chromatin State files, and TF motif files were obtained as described previously [5, 54]. ABC, CADD, CATO, closest gene, ENCODE4 regulatory element CRISPR sgRNAs, eQTLs from GTEx and eQTLGen, and Zoonomia PhyloP scores were obtained from the respective studies [15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 52]. All these datasets are available for bulk download via the FORGEdb API and from Zenodo at https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5281/zenodo.10067458. Instructions for downloading the FORGEdb constituent databases are at https://github.com/CBIIT/nci-webtools-dceg-forgedb#building-and-hosting-the-api. FORGEdb scores can be downloaded from Zenodo at https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5281/zenodo.10067458.

Source code and additional files

FORGEdb is available via web browser (https://forgedb.cancer.gov/ and https://forge2.altiusinstitute.org/files/forgedb.html). A programmatic interface to FORGEdb has been developed via CRAN package LDlinkR (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/LDlinkR/index.html) and, additionally, API instructions are at https://forgedb.cancer.gov/api-access. FORGEdb source code is available under the MIT license from https://github.com/CBIIT/nci-webtools-dceg-forgedb, https://github.com/charlesbreeze/FORGEdb and https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5281/zenodo.10067458 [55, 56]. Instructions for hosting FORGEdb on a static file server are available in Additional file 3.

References

  1. Visscher PM, Wray NR, Zhang Q, Sklar P, McCarthy MI, Brown MA, et al. 10 years of GWAS discovery: biology, function, and translation. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;101:5–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Welter D, MacArthur J, Morales J, Burdett T, Hall P, Junkins H, et al. The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations. Nucl Acids Res. 2014;42:D1001–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maurano MT, Humbert R, Rynes E, Thurman RE, Haugen E, Wang H, et al. Systematic localization of common disease-associated variation in regulatory DNA. Science. 2012;337:1190–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Claussnitzer M, Dankel SN, Kim K-H, Quon G, Meuleman W, Haugen C, et al. FTO obesity variant circuitry and adipocyte browning in humans. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:895–907.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Breeze CE, Haugen E, Reynolds A, Teschendorff A, van Dongen J, Lan Q, et al. Integrative analysis of 3604 GWAS reveals multiple novel cell type-specific regulatory associations. Genome Biol. 2022;23:13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium, Kundaje A, Meuleman W, Ernst J, Bilenky M, Yen A, et al. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature. 2015;518:317–30.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Breeze CE, Batorsky A, Lee MK, Szeto MD, Xu X, McCartney DL, et al. Epigenome-wide association study of kidney function identifies trans-ethnic and ethnic-specific loci. Genome Med. 2021;13(1):74. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13073-021-00877-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Dunham I, Kulesha E, Iotchkova V, Morganella S, Birney E. FORGE: A tool to discover cell specific enrichments of GWAS associated SNPs in regulatory regions. bioRxiv. 2014;013045. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1101/013045.

  9. ENCODE Project Consortium. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 2012;489:57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stunnenberg HG, Abrignani S, Adams D, de Almeida M, Altucci L, Amin V, et al. The International Human Epigenome Consortium: a blueprint for scientific collaboration and discovery. Cell. 2016;167:1145–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ward LD, Kellis M. HaploReg v4: systematic mining of putative causal variants, cell types, regulators and target genes for human complex traits and disease. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D877–881.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boyle AP, Hong EL, Hariharan M, Cheng Y, Schaub MA, Kasowski M, et al. Annotation of functional variation in personal genomes using RegulomeDB. Genome Res. 2012;22:1790–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Tak YG, Farnham PJ. Making sense of GWAS: using epigenomics and genome engineering to understand the functional relevance of SNPs in non-coding regions of the human genome. Epigenetics Chromatin. 2015;8:57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lieberman-Aiden E, van Berkum NL, Williams L, Imakaev M, Ragoczy T, Telling A, et al. Comprehensive mapping of long range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science. 2009;326:289–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. GTEx Consortium. Human genomics. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) pilot analysis: multitissue gene regulation in humans. Science. 2015;348:648–60.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Võsa U, Claringbould A, Westra H-J, Bonder MJ, Deelen P, Zeng B, et al. Large-scale cis- and trans-eQTL analyses identify thousands of genetic loci and polygenic scores that regulate blood gene expression. Nat Genet. 2021;53:1300–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Maurano MT, Haugen E, Sandstrom R, Vierstra J, Shafer A, Kaul R, et al. Large-scale identification of sequence variants influencing human transcription factor occupancy in vivo. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1393–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Fulco CP, Nasser J, Jones TR, Munson G, Bergman DT, Subramanian V, et al. Activity-by-contact model of enhancer-promoter regulation from thousands of CRISPR perturbations. Nat Genet. 2019;51:1664–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Rentzsch P, Schubach M, Shendure J, Kircher M. CADD-Splice—improving genome-wide variant effect prediction using deep learning-derived splice scores. Genome Medicine. 2021;13:31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Genereux DP, Serres A, Armstrong J, Johnson J, Marinescu VD, Murén E, et al. A comparative genomics multitool for scientific discovery and conservation. Nature. 2020;587:240–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yao D, Tycko J, Oh JW, Bounds LR, Gosai SJ, Lataniotis L, et al. Multi-center integrated analysis of non-coding CRISPR screens. bioRxiv. 2022:2022.12.21.520137. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.21.520137v1. Cited 2023 Nov 2.

  22. Frayling TM, Timpson NJ, Weedon MN, Zeggini E, Freathy RM, Lindgren CM, et al. A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science. 2007;316:889–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bellenguez C, KĂ¼Ă§Ă¼kali F, Jansen IE, Kleineidam L, Moreno-Grau S, Amin N, et al. New insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. Nat Genet. 2022;54:412–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Elsworth B, Lyon M, Alexander T, Liu Y, Matthews P, Hallett J, et al. The MRC IEU OpenGWAS data infrastructure. bioRxiv. 2020:2020.08.10.244293. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.10.244293v1. Cited 2023 Apr 12.

  25. Pulit SL, Stoneman C, Morris AP, Wood AR, Glastonbury CA, Tyrrell J, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for body fat distribution in 694 649 individuals of European ancestry. Hum Mol Genet. 2019;28:166–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yengo L, Vedantam S, Marouli E, Sidorenko J, Bartell E, Sakaue S, et al. A saturated map of common genetic variants associated with human height. Nature. 2022;610:704–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Yengo L, Sidorenko J, Kemper KE, Zheng Z, Wood AR, Weedon MN, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for height and body mass index in ∼700000 individuals of European ancestry. Hum Mol Genet. 2018;27:3641–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ghouse J, Tragante V, Ahlberg G, Rand SA, Jespersen JB, Leinøe EB, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies 93 risk loci and enables risk prediction equivalent to monogenic forms of venous thromboembolism. Nat Genet. 2023;55:399–409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Graham SE, Clarke SL, Wu KHH, Kanoni S, Zajac GJM, Ramdas S, et al. The power of genetic diversity in genome-wide association studies of lipids. Nature. 2021;600:675–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Landi MT, Bishop DT, MacGregor S, Machiela MJ, Stratigos AJ, Ghiorzo P, et al. Genome-wide association meta-analyses combining multiple risk phenotypes provides insights into the genetic architecture of cutaneous melanoma susceptibility. Nat Genet. 2020;52:494–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. de Lange KM, Moutsianas L, Lee JC, Lamb CA, Luo Y, Kennedy NA, et al. Genome-wide association study implicates immune activation of multiple integrin genes in inflammatory bowel disease. Nat Genet. 2017;49:256–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ishigaki K, Sakaue S, Terao C, Luo Y, Sonehara K, Yamaguchi K, et al. Multi-ancestry genome-wide association analyses identify novel genetic mechanisms in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Genet. 2022;54:1640–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Grove J, Ripke S, Als TD, Mattheisen M, Walters RK, Won H, et al. Identification of common genetic risk variants for autism spectrum disorder. Nat Genet. 2019;51:431–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Demontis D, Walters RK, Martin J, Mattheisen M, Als TD, Agerbo E, et al. Discovery of the first genome-wide significant risk loci for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Nat Genet. 2019;51:63–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wray NR, Ripke S, Mattheisen M, Trzaskowski M, Byrne EM, Abdellaoui A, et al. Genome-wide association analyses identify 44 risk variants and refine the genetic architecture of major depression. Nat Genet. 2018;50:668–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci. Nature. 2014;511:421–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Astle WJ, Elding H, Jiang T, Allen D, Ruklisa D, Mann AL, et al. The allelic landscape of human blood cell trait variation and links to common complex disease. Cell. 2016;167:1415–1429.e19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Vuckovic D, Bao EL, Akbari P, Lareau CA, Mousas A, Jiang T, et al. The polygenic and monogenic basis of blood traits and diseases. Cell. 2020;182:1214–1231.e11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Evangelou E, Warren HR, Mosen-Ansorena D, Mifsud B, Pazoki R, Gao H, et al. Genetic analysis of over 1 million people identifies 535 new loci associated with blood pressure traits. Nat Genet. 2018;50:1412–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. McKay JD, Hung RJ, Han Y, Zong X, Carreras-Torres R, Christiani DC, et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies new lung cancer susceptibility loci and heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across histological subtypes. Nat Genet. 2017;49:1126–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Michailidou K, Lindström S, Dennis J, Beesley J, Hui S, Kar S, et al. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature. 2017;551:92–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Schumacher FR, Al Olama AA, Berndt SI, Benlloch S, Ahmed M, Saunders EJ, et al. Association analyses of more than 140,000 men identify 63 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci. Nat Genet. 2018;50:928–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Manning AK, Hivert M-F, Scott RA, Grimsby JL, Bouatia-Naji N, Chen H, et al. A genome-wide approach accounting for body mass index identifies genetic variants influencing fasting glycemic traits and insulin resistance. Nat Genet. 2012;44:659–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Xue A, Wu Y, Zhu Z, Zhang F, Kemper KE, Zheng Z, et al. Genome-wide association analyses identify 143 risk variants and putative regulatory mechanisms for type 2 diabetes. Nat Commun. 2018;9:2941.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Kanai M, Akiyama M, Takahashi A, Matoba N, Momozawa Y, Ikeda M, et al. Genetic analysis of quantitative traits in the Japanese population links cell types to complex human diseases. Nat Genet. 2018;50:390–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. van der Harst P, Verweij N. Identification of 64 novel genetic loci provides an expanded view on the genetic architecture of coronary artery disease. Circ Res. 2018;122:433–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Tewhey R, Kotliar D, Park DS, Liu B, Winnicki S, Reilly SK, et al. Direct identification of hundreds of expression-modulating variants using a multiplexed reporter assay. Cell. 2016;165:1519–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Kircher M, Xiong C, Martin B, Schubach M, Inoue F, Bell RJA, et al. Saturation mutagenesis of twenty disease-associated regulatory elements at single base-pair resolution. Nat Commun. 2019;10:3583.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Machiela MJ, Chanock SJ. LDlink: a web-based application for exploring population-specific haplotype structure and linking correlated alleles of possible functional variants. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:3555–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Machiela MJ, Chanock SJ. LDassoc: an online tool for interactively exploring genome-wide association study results and prioritizing variants for functional investigation. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:887–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Schmidt H, Zhang M, Mourelatos H, SĂ¡nchez-Rivera FJ, Lowe SW, Ventura A, et al. Genome-wide CRISPR guide RNA design and specificity analysis with GuideScan2. bioRxiv. 2022:2022.05.02.490368. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.02.490368v1.

  52. O’Leary NA, Wright MW, Brister JR, Ciufo S, Haddad D, McVeigh R, et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D733–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. R Core Team Rf. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R foundation for statistical computing; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Breeze CE, Reynolds AP, van Dongen J, Dunham I, Lazar J, Neph S, et al. eFORGE v2.0: updated analysis of cell type-specific signal in epigenomic data. Bioinformatics. 2019;35:4767–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. FORGEdb: a tool for identifying candidate functional variants and uncovering target genes and mechanisms for complex diseases. Available from: https://zenodo.org/records/10067458. Cited 2023 Nov 2.

  56. Breeze C. FORGEdb GitHub. 2023. Available from: https://github.com/charlesbreeze/FORGEdb. Cited 2023 Nov 2.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) consortium and the International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) integrative analysis project for supporting this research. We would like to acknowledge Brian Park, Kailing Chen, Madhu Kanigicherla, and Ben Chen from the Center for Biomedical Informatics and Information Technology (CBIIT) for technical assistance and web development. We would like to thank Josh Tycko for helpful discussion.

Peer review information

Anahita Bishop and Andrew Cosgrove were the primary editors of this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

Review history

The review history is available as Additional file 2.

Funding

This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, and the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics Informatics Tool Challenge. SB acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust (218274/Z/19/Z).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Charles E. Breeze, Xiaozheng Yao, Mitchell J. Machiela & Sonja I. Berndt

  2. Altius Institute for Biomedical Sciences, 2211 Elliott Avenue 98121, Seattle, USA

    Charles E. Breeze, Eric Haugen & John Stamatoyannopoulos

  3. UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, 72 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    Charles E. Breeze & Stephan Beck

  4. Division of Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    MarĂ­a Gutierrez-Arcelus

  5. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

    MarĂ­a Gutierrez-Arcelus

  6. CAS Key Lab of Computational Biology, Shanghai Institute for Biological Sciences, CAS-MPG Partner Institute for Computational Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 320 Yue Yang Road, Shanghai, 200031, China

    Andrew Teschendorff

  7. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK

    Ian Dunham

  8. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Nora Franceschini

Authors
  1. Charles E. Breeze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Haugen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. MarĂ­a Gutierrez-Arcelus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaozheng Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew Teschendorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephan Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ian Dunham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John Stamatoyannopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nora Franceschini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mitchell J. Machiela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sonja I. Berndt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Advised or performed statistical analyses: CEB, EH, MG-A, XY, AT, SB, ID, JS, NF, MM, and SIB. Web tool design: CEB, EH. CEB and SIB wrote the paper with contributions from all other authors. All authors contributed to the final draft.

Authors’ Twitter handle

@charles_breeze (Charles E. Breeze)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles E. Breeze.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

FORGEdb score (average, y-axis) versus GWAS -log10(p-value) (x-axis) across 30 GWAS, FORGE2 analysis. Each red point shows the FORGEdb score average across all GWAS SNPs at a each p-value cutoff. Each grey point shows the FORGEdb score average across background SNPs (FORGE2 linkage disequilibrium analysis, same minor allele frequency). FORGE2 SNP number requirements preclude background analysis for certain p-value thresholds in some of the GWAS. Order of panels: melanoma, monocyte cell count, diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, neutrophil cell count, eosinophil cell count, lymphocyte cell count, white blood cell count, basophil cell count, lung cancer, schizophrenia, estimated glomerular filtration rate, major depressive disorder, type 2 diabetes, body mass index, rheumatoid arthritis, height, waist-to-hip ratio, fasting insulin, red blood cell count, inflammatory bowel disease, Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, prostate cancer, LDL, hair color, colon cancer, and venous thrombosis.

Additional file 2. 

Review history.

Additional file 3.

Instructions for hosting FORGEdb on a static file server.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Breeze, C.E., Haugen, E., Gutierrez-Arcelus, M. et al. FORGEdb: a tool for identifying candidate functional variants and uncovering target genes and mechanisms for complex diseases. Genome Biol 25, 3 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13059-023-03126-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13059-023-03126-1

Keywords

Genome Biology

ISSN: 1474-760X

Contact us