Cell type-specific network analysis in Diversity Outbred mice identifies genes potentially responsible for human bone mineral density GWAS associations
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This important study provides a framework for applying single-cell transcriptome data and network analysis from genetically diverse mouse cells to identify novel driver genes underlying the role of genetic loci associated with bone mineral density. The evidence supporting the identification of the driver genes and the conclusion of the paper is convincing. Overall, this approach may be broadly applicable and of interest to researchers investigating the genetics of complex diseases.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified many sources of genetic variation associated with bone mineral density (BMD), a clinical predictor of fracture risk and osteoporosis. Aside from the identification of causal genes, other difficult challenges to informing GWAS include characterizing the roles of predicted causal genes in disease and providing additional functional context, such as the cell type predictions or biological pathways in which causal genes operate. Leveraging single-cell transcriptomics (scRNA-seq) can assist in informing BMD GWAS by linking disease-associated variants to genes and providing a cell type context for which these causal genes drive disease. Here, we use large-scale scRNA-seq data from bone marrow–derived stromal cells cultured under osteogenic conditions (BMSC-OBs) from Diversity Outbred (DO) mice to generate cell type-specific networks and contextualize BMD GWAS-implicated genes. Using trajectories inferred from the scRNA-seq data, we identify networks enriched with genes that exhibit the most dynamic changes in expression across trajectories. We discover 21 network driver genes, which are likely to be causal for human BMD GWAS associations that colocalize with expression/splicing quantitative trait loci (eQTL/sQTL). These driver genes, including Fgfrl1 and Tpx2, along with their associated networks, are predicted to be novel regulators of BMD via their roles in the differentiation of mesenchymal lineage cells. In this work, we showcase the use of single-cell transcriptomics from mouse bone-relevant cells to inform human BMD GWAS and prioritize genetic targets with potential causal roles in the development of osteoporosis.
Article activity feed
-
eLife Assessment
This important study provides a framework for applying single-cell transcriptome data and network analysis from genetically diverse mouse cells to identify novel driver genes underlying the role of genetic loci associated with bone mineral density. The evidence supporting the identification of the driver genes and the conclusion of the paper is convincing. Overall, this approach may be broadly applicable and of interest to researchers investigating the genetics of complex diseases.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
In this manuscript, Dillard and colleagues integrate cross-species genomic data with a systems approach to identify potential driver genes underlying human GWAS loci and establish the cell type(s) within which these genes act and potentially drive disease. Specifically, they utilize a large single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) dataset from an osteogenic cell culture model - bone marrow-derived stromal cells cultured under osteogenic conditions (BMSC-OBs) - from a genetically diverse outbred mouse population called the Diversity Outbred (DO) stock to discover network driver genes that likely underlie human bone mineral density (BMD) GWAS loci. The DO mice segregate over 40M single nucleotide variants, many of which affect gene expression levels, therefore making this an ideal population for systems genetic and …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
In this manuscript, Dillard and colleagues integrate cross-species genomic data with a systems approach to identify potential driver genes underlying human GWAS loci and establish the cell type(s) within which these genes act and potentially drive disease. Specifically, they utilize a large single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) dataset from an osteogenic cell culture model - bone marrow-derived stromal cells cultured under osteogenic conditions (BMSC-OBs) - from a genetically diverse outbred mouse population called the Diversity Outbred (DO) stock to discover network driver genes that likely underlie human bone mineral density (BMD) GWAS loci. The DO mice segregate over 40M single nucleotide variants, many of which affect gene expression levels, therefore making this an ideal population for systems genetic and co-expression analyses. The current study builds on previously published work from the same group that used co-expression analysis to identify co-expressed "modules" of genes that were enriched for BMD GWAS associations. In this study, the authors utilize a much larger scRNA-seq dataset from 80 DO BMSC-OBs, infer co-expression-based and Bayesian networks for each identified mesenchymal cell type, focused on networks with dynamic expression trajectories that are most likely driving differentiation of BMSC-OBs, and then prioritized genes ("differentiation driver genes" or DDGs) in these osteogenic differentiation networks that had known expression or splicing QTLs (eQTL/sQTLs) in any GTEx tissue that colocalized with human BMD GWAS loci. The systems analysis is impressive, the experimental methods are described in detail, and the experiments appear to be carefully done. The computational analysis of the single-cell data is comprehensive and thorough, and the evidence presented in support of the identified DDGs, including Tpx2 and Fgfrl1, is for the most part convincing. Some limitations in the data resources and methods hamper enthusiasm somewhat and are discussed below. Overall, while this study will no doubt be valuable to the BMD community, the cross-species data integration and analytical framework may be more valuable and generally applicable to the study of other diseases, especially for diseases with robust human GWAS data but for which robust human genomic data in relevant cell types is lacking.
Specific strengths of the study include the large scRNA-seq dataset on BMSC-OBs from 80 DO mice, the clustering analysis to identify specific cell types and sub-types, the comparison of cell type frequencies across the DO mice, and the CELLECT analysis to prioritize cell clusters that are enriched for BMD heritability (Figure 1). The network analysis pipeline outlined in Figure 2 is also a strength, as is the pseudotime trajectory analysis (results in Figure 3). One weakness involves the focus on genes that were previously identified as having an eQTL or sQTL in any GTEx tissue. The authors rightly point out that the GTEx database does not contain data for bone tissue, but the reason that eQTLs can be shared across many tissues - this assumption is valid for many cis-eQTLs, but it could also exclude many genes as potential DDGs with effects that are specific to bone/osteoblasts. Indeed, the authors show that important BMD driver genes have cell-type-specific eQTLs. Furthermore, the mesenchymal cell type-specific co-expression analysis by iterative WGCNA identified an average of 76 co-expression modules per cell cluster (range 26-153). Based on the limited number of genes that are detected as expressed in a given cell due to sparse per-cell read depth (400-6200 reads/cell) and dropouts, it's hard to believe that as many as 153 co-expression modules could be distinguished within any cell cluster. I would suspect some degree of model overfitting here and would expect that many/most of these identified modules have very few gene members, but the methods list a minimum module size of 20 genes. How do the numbers of modules identified in this study compare to other published scRNA-seq studies that use iterative WGCNA?
In the section "Identification of differentiation driver genes (DDGs)", the authors identified 408 significant DDGs and found that 49 (12%) were reported by the International Mouse Knockout [sic] Consortium (IMPC) as having a significant effect on whole-body BMD when knocked out in mice. Is this enrichment significant? E.g., what is the background percentage of IMPC gene knockouts that show an effect on whole-body BMD? Similarly, they found that 21 of the 408 DDGs were genes that have BMD GWAS associations that colocalize with GTEx eQTLs/sQTLs. Given that there are > 1,000 BMD GWAS associations, is this enrichment (21/408) significant? Recommend performing a hypergeometric test to provide statistical context to the reported overlaps here.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Farber and colleagues have performed single-cell RNAseq analysis on bone marrow-derived stem cells from DO Mice. By performing network analysis, they look for driver genes that are associated with bone mineral density GWAS associations. They identify two genes as potential candidates to showcase the utility of this approach.
Strengths:
The study is very thorough and the approach is innovative and exciting. The manuscript contains some interesting data relating to how cell differentiation is occurring and the effects of genetics on this process. The section looking for genes with eQTLs that differ across the differentiation trajectory (Figure 4) was particularly exciting.
Weaknesses:
The manuscript is in parts hard to read due to the use of acronyms and there are some questions …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Farber and colleagues have performed single-cell RNAseq analysis on bone marrow-derived stem cells from DO Mice. By performing network analysis, they look for driver genes that are associated with bone mineral density GWAS associations. They identify two genes as potential candidates to showcase the utility of this approach.
Strengths:
The study is very thorough and the approach is innovative and exciting. The manuscript contains some interesting data relating to how cell differentiation is occurring and the effects of genetics on this process. The section looking for genes with eQTLs that differ across the differentiation trajectory (Figure 4) was particularly exciting.
Weaknesses:
The manuscript is in parts hard to read due to the use of acronyms and there are some questions about data analysis that need to be addressed.
-
-
-
