Back

Mapping the regulatory effects of common and rare non-coding variants across cellular and developmental contexts in the brain and heart

Marderstein, A. R.; Kundu, S.; Padhi, E. M.; Deshpande, S.; Wang, A.; Robb, E.; Sun, Y.; Yun, C. M.; Pomales-Matos, D.; Xie, Y.; Nachun, D.; Jessa, S.; Kundaje, A.; Montgomery, S. B.

2025-02-19 genomics
10.1101/2025.02.18.638922 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Whole genome sequencing has identified over a billion non-coding variants in humans, while GWAS has revealed the non-coding genome as a significant contributor to disease. However, prioritizing causal common and rare non-coding variants in human disease, and understanding how selective pressures have shaped the non-coding genome, remains a significant challenge. Here, we predicted the effects of 15 million variants with deep learning models trained on single-cell ATAC-seq across 132 cellular contexts in adult and fetal brain and heart, producing nearly two billion context-specific predictions. Using these predictions, we distinguish candidate causal variants underlying human traits and diseases and their context-specific effects. While common variant effects are more cell-type-specific, rare variants exert more cell-type-shared regulatory effects, with selective pressures particularly targeting variants affecting fetal brain neurons. To prioritize de novo mutations with extreme regulatory effects, we developed FLARE, a context-specific functional genomic model of constraint. FLARE outperformed other methods in prioritizing case mutations from autism-affected families near syndromic autism-associated genes; for example, identifying mutation outliers near CNTNAP2 that would be missed by alternative approaches. Overall, our findings demonstrate the potential of integrating single-cell maps with population genetics and deep learning-based variant effect prediction to elucidate mechanisms of development and disease-ultimately, supporting the notion that genetic contributions to neurodevelopmental disorders are predominantly rare.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.