TY - JOUR
T1 - Erratum
T2 - Genetic Control of Expression and Splicing in Developing Human Brain Informs Disease Mechanisms (Cell (2019) 179(3) (750–771.e22), (S0092867419310724), (10.1016/j.cell.2019.09.021))
AU - Walker, Rebecca L.
AU - Ramaswami, Gokul
AU - Hartl, Christopher
AU - Mancuso, Nicholas
AU - Gandal, Michael J.
AU - de la Torre-Ubieta, Luis
AU - Pasaniuc, Bogdan
AU - Stein, Jason L.
AU - Geschwind, Daniel H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2020/4/30
Y1 - 2020/4/30
N2 - (Cell 179, 750–771.e1–e22; October 17, 2019) A reader has called our attention to an error in the Methods in our description of the cis-window for the eQTL analysis, related to the data in Table S1. It originally stated, “a defined cis window of 1 megabase up- and down-stream of the transcription start site,” but should state “a defined cis window of 1 megabase up- and down-stream of the gene start site regardless of strand.” Based on this, we have corrected Table S1, to provide the actual distance to the TSS for the top SNP per eGene. Additionally, we reanalyzed the data by considering strand information to assign the TSS (gene start for + strand genes and gene end for – strand genes) in the input to FastQTL. There is a 99% overlap (6508/6546 remain significant), resulting in no substantial differences in eGenes with both methods. The major difference is that in the new analysis, we find 52 additional new eGenes and 38, which no longer reach our stringent threshold for significance. However, the conclusions of the paper and interpretation of the data remain unchanged. We apologize for any confusion this error has caused.
AB - (Cell 179, 750–771.e1–e22; October 17, 2019) A reader has called our attention to an error in the Methods in our description of the cis-window for the eQTL analysis, related to the data in Table S1. It originally stated, “a defined cis window of 1 megabase up- and down-stream of the transcription start site,” but should state “a defined cis window of 1 megabase up- and down-stream of the gene start site regardless of strand.” Based on this, we have corrected Table S1, to provide the actual distance to the TSS for the top SNP per eGene. Additionally, we reanalyzed the data by considering strand information to assign the TSS (gene start for + strand genes and gene end for – strand genes) in the input to FastQTL. There is a 99% overlap (6508/6546 remain significant), resulting in no substantial differences in eGenes with both methods. The major difference is that in the new analysis, we find 52 additional new eGenes and 38, which no longer reach our stringent threshold for significance. However, the conclusions of the paper and interpretation of the data remain unchanged. We apologize for any confusion this error has caused.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083756230&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.016
DO - 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.016
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 32359439
AN - SCOPUS:85083756230
SN - 0092-8674
VL - 181
SP - 745
JO - Cell
JF - Cell
IS - 3
ER -