Back

Position-dependent variant effects reveal importance of context in genomic regulation

Aninta, S. I.; Tewhey, R.; de Boer, C. G.

2026-03-18 genomics
10.64898/2026.03.17.712488 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Gene expression is governed by the DNA sequence, which is read out through complex interactions between transcription factors (TFs), co-activators, and chromatin. Massively Parallel Reporter Assays (MPRAs) provide a high-throughput framework for functionally characterizing how regulatory DNA sequences impact the expression of a model gene. MPRAs have also proven to be useful for measuring the effects of genetic variation, where each allele is typically tested in the center of [~]200 bp of genomic context cloned into the MPRA; but the impact of variant position and local context remains largely unexplored. In this study, we systematically investigate how shifting the position of a variant within an MPRA probe influences its regulatory activity using models that predict expression in MPRAs from DNA sequence. We find that while the direction of variant effects is usually preserved across positions, the magnitude of expression changes can vary substantially depending on where the variant is placed within the construct. This positional bias appears to be largely explained by the strong position-dependent activity of TFs whose binding the variants perturb. In a subset of cases, interactions consistent with cooperativity between TFs also contributes to position-specific effects. [~]1% of variants appear to disrupt RNA polymerase III (Pol III) promoters within Alu elements, resulting in position-specificity because both A and B boxes are required for function and exclusion of either motif due to window shifts disrupts the variants effects. However, we saw little evidence to support the hypothesis that the positional dependence of variant effects resulted from redundancy of motifs. Overall, our study demonstrates the complexity of cis-regulatory grammar and how it can confound the interpretation of regulatory variants.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
22.0%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 4%
8.2%
3
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 14%
6.2%
4
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.2%
5
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
6
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.5%
9
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.0%
10
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.8%
11
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
214 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
12
Physical Review E
95 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
13
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.0%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.7%
15
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
16
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
17
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
18
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.3%
19
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
20
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
22
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.9%
23
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
24
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.8%
26
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
27
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
70 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
28
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
29
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
30
Journal of Molecular Biology
217 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%