Thanks for the shout out, and welcome any new followers.
I like looking at GWAS and trying to decipher the causal biology behind the hits.
I use this account to highlight interesting results and provide links to the tools and approaches I find most useful.
I like looking at GWAS and trying to decipher the causal biology behind the hits.
I use this account to highlight interesting results and provide links to the tools and approaches I find most useful.
https://twitter.com/jpirruccello/status/1345133960473542656
One theme I come back to is that because the closest gene is usually the correct causal gene any analysis of a new GWAS should start there.
Here's a story from almost a year ago, a great study on heart trabeculae that initially ignored the closest genes
Here's a story from almost a year ago, a great study on heart trabeculae that initially ignored the closest genes
https://twitter.com/Eric_Fauman/status/1099343267718672384
Fortunately this paper was on biorxiv. After I tweeted about the omissions and before it was published in Nature, the paper was amended to include 2 of the prominent heart structure genes: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32814899/ 
Today @robo_gwas tweeted out a GWAS on mitochondrial abundance appearing in Human Genetics. This also went up first in biorxiv, but unfortunately I only discovered it today, so my suggestions will have to await some future publication
https://twitter.com/robo_gwas/status/1345350640063504384
When I have an especially interesting biological story for a new GWAS, I like to reveal it in a thread I call:
"Who's that causal gene?"
Here's one for this mitochondrial abundance GWAS:
"Who's that causal gene?"
Here's one for this mitochondrial abundance GWAS:
https://twitter.com/Eric_Fauman/status/1345407179080265729
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
