Download PDF
J Pediatr Genet 2016; 05(01): 002-014
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1557108
Review Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Techniques and Approaches to Genetic Analyses in Nephrological Disorders

Laurel K. Willig
1   Center for Pediatric Genomic Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri, United States
2   Division of Nephrology, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri, United States
3   Department of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10 January 2015

20 February 2015

Publication Date:
13 August 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Inherited renal disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric nephrology. High throughput advancements in genomics have led to greater understanding of the biologic underpinnings of these diseases. However, the underlying genetic changes explain only part of the molecular biology that contributes to disease manifestation and progression. Other omics technologies will provide a more complete picture of these cellular processes. This review discusses these omics technologies in the context of pediatric renal disease.

Keywords

next generation sequencing - nephrology - proteomics - genomics - metabolomics - epigenomics - transcriptomics
 

  • References

  • 1 Devuyst O, Knoers NV, Remuzzi G, Schaefer F ; Board of the Working Group for Inherited Kidney Diseases of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association. Rare inherited kidney diseases: challenges, opportunities, and perspectives. Lancet 2014; 383 (9931) 1844-1859
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Reeders ST, Breuning MH, Davies KE , et al. A highly polymorphic DNA marker linked to adult polycystic kidney disease on chromosome 16. Nature 1985; 317 (6037) 542-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 NCBI handbook. Bethesda, MD. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2002 . Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21091/ . Accessed October 1, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Renkema KY, Stokman MF, Giles RH, Knoers NV. Next-generation sequencing for research and diagnostics in kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 2014; 10 (8) 433-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Artuso R, Fallerini C, Dosa L , et al. Advances in Alport syndrome diagnosis using next-generation sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet 2012; 20 (1) 50-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chatterjee R, Hoffman M, Cliften P, Seshan S, Liapis H, Jain S. Targeted exome sequencing integrated with clinicopathological information reveals novel and rare mutations in atypical, suspected and unknown cases of Alport syndrome or proteinuria. PLoS ONE 2013; 8 (10) e76360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 McCarthy HJ, Bierzynska A, Wherlock M , et al; RADAR the UK SRNS Study Group. Simultaneous sequencing of 24 genes associated with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013; 8 (4) 637-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Munroe PB, Barnes MR, Caulfield MJ. Advances in blood pressure genomics. Circ Res 2013; 112 (10) 1365-1379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hildebrandt F. Genetic kidney diseases. Lancet 2010; 375 (9722) 1287-1295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 MacArthur DG, Manolio TA, Dimmock DP , et al. Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 2014; 508 (7497) 469-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bansal V, Libiger O, Torkamani A, Schork NJ. Statistical analysis strategies for association studies involving rare variants. Nat Rev Genet 2010; 11 (11) 773-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Robinson MD, Kahraman A, Law CW , et al. Statistical methods for detecting differentially methylated loci and regions. Front Genet 2014; 5: 324
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Angelini C, Costa V. Understanding gene regulatory mechanisms by integrating ChIP-seq and RNA-seq data: statistical solutions to biological problems. Front Cell Dev Biol 2014; 2: 51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Marstrand TT, Storey JD. Identifying and mapping cell-type-specific chromatin programming of gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014; 111 (6) E645-E654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lee S, Emond MJ, Bamshad MJ , et al; NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project—ESP Lung Project Team. Optimal unified approach for rare-variant association testing with application to small-sample case-control whole-exome sequencing studies. Am J Hum Genet 2012; 91 (2) 224-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Soneson C, Delorenzi M. A comparison of methods for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14: 91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Matthiesen R, Carvalho AS. Methods and algorithms for quantitative proteomics by mass spectrometry. Methods Mol Biol 2013; 1007: 183-217
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Matthiesen R, Azevedo L, Amorim A, Carvalho AS. Discussion on common data analysis strategies used in MS-based proteomics. Proteomics 2011; 11 (4) 604-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pernemalm M, Lehtiö J. Mass spectrometry-based plasma proteomics: state of the art and future outlook. Expert Rev Proteomics 2014; 11 (4) 431-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sugimoto M, Kawakami M, Robert M, Soga T, Tomita M. Bioinformatics Tools for Mass Spectroscopy-Based Metabolomic Data Processing and Analysis. Curr Bioinform 2012; 7 (1) 96-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schäfer M, Lkhagvasuren O, Klein HU , et al. Integrative analyses for omics data: a Bayesian mixture model to assess the concordance of ChIP-chip and ChIP-seq measurements. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2012; 75 (8-10) 461-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mensaert K, Denil S, Trooskens G, Van Criekinge W, Thas O, De Meyer T. Next-generation technologies and data analytical approaches for epigenomics. Environ Mol Mutagen 2014; 55 (3) 155-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Replogle JM, De Jager PL. Epigenomics in translational research. Transl Res 2015; 165 (1) 7-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chi YY, Gribbin MJ, Johnson JL, Muller KE. Power calculation for overall hypothesis testing with high-dimensional commensurate outcomes. Stat Med 2014; 33 (5) 812-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rizzo JM, Buck MJ. Key principles and clinical applications of “next-generation” DNA sequencing. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2012; 5 (7) 887-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Witasp A, Ekström TJ, Lindholm B, Stenvinkel P, Schalling M, Nordfors L. Novel insights from genetic and epigenetic studies in understanding the complex uraemic phenotype. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2014; 29 (5) 964-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mischak H, Ioannidis JP, Argiles A , et al. Implementation of proteomic biomarkers: making it work. Eur J Clin Invest 2012; 42 (9) 1027-1036
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Weiss MM, Van der Zwaag B, Jongbloed JD , et al. Best practice guidelines for the use of next-generation sequencing applications in genome diagnostics: a national collaborative study of Dutch genome diagnostic laboratories. Hum Mutat 2013; 34 (10) 1313-1321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chervitz SA, Deutsch EW, Field D , et al. Data standards for Omics data: the basis of data sharing and reuse. Methods Mol Biol 2011; 719: 31-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Field D, Garrity G, Gray T , et al. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26 (5) 541-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mardis ER. Next-generation sequencing platforms. Annu Rev Anal Chem (Palo Alto, Calif) 2013; 6: 287-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 van Dijk EL, Auger H, Jaszczyszyn Y, Thermes C. Ten years of next-generation sequencing technology. Trends Genet 2014; 30 (9) 418-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Riebler A, Menigatti M, Song JZ , et al. BayMeth: improved DNA methylation quantification for affinity capture sequencing data using a flexible Bayesian approach. Genome Biol 2014; 15 (2) R35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ross MG, Russ C, Costello M , et al. Characterizing and measuring bias in sequence data. Genome Biol 2013; 14 (5) R51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Buermans HP, den Dunnen JT. Next generation sequencing technology: Advances and applications. Biochim Biophys Acta 2014; 1842 (10) 1932-1941
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hui P. Next generation sequencing: chemistry, technology and applications. Top Curr Chem 2014; 336: 1-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Liu L, Li Y, Li S , et al. Comparison of next-generation sequencing systems. J Biomed Biotechnol 2012; 2012: 251364
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 van Dijk EL, Jaszczyszyn Y, Thermes C. Library preparation methods for next-generation sequencing: tone down the bias. Exp Cell Res 2014; 322 (1) 12-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Coonrod EM, Durtschi JD, Margraf RL, Voelkerding KV. Developing genome and exome sequencing for candidate gene identification in inherited disorders: an integrated technical and bioinformatics approach. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013; 137 (3) 415-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Pattnaik S, Vaidyanathan S, Pooja DG, Deepak S, Panda B. Customisation of the exome data analysis pipeline using a combinatorial approach. PLoS ONE 2012; 7 (1) e30080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bao S, Jiang R, Kwan W, Wang B, Ma X, Song YQ. Evaluation of next-generation sequencing software in mapping and assembly. J Hum Genet 2011; 56 (6) 406-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ruffalo M, LaFramboise T, Koyutürk M. Comparative analysis of algorithms for next-generation sequencing read alignment. Bioinformatics 2011; 27 (20) 2790-2796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Pirooznia M, Kramer M, Parla J , et al. Validation and assessment of variant calling pipelines for next-generation sequencing. Hum Genomics 2014; 8: 14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Yi M, Zhao Y, Jia L, He M, Kebebew E, Stephens RM. Performance comparison of SNP detection tools with illumina exome sequencing data—an assessment using both family pedigree information and sample-matched SNP array data. Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42 (12) e101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Liu X, Han S, Wang Z, Gelernter J, Yang BZ. Variant callers for next-generation sequencing data: a comparison study. PLoS ONE 2013; 8 (9) e75619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Voelkerding KV, Dames SA, Durtschi JD. Next-generation sequencing: from basic research to diagnostics. Clin Chem 2009; 55 (4) 641-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Koboldt DC, Steinberg KM, Larson DE, Wilson RK, Mardis ER. The next-generation sequencing revolution and its impact on genomics. Cell 2013; 155 (1) 27-38
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Goh G, Choi M. Application of whole exome sequencing to identify disease-causing variants in inherited human diseases. Genomics Inform 2012; 10 (4) 214-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Lee H, Deignan JL, Dorrani N , et al. Clinical exome sequencing for genetic identification of rare Mendelian disorders. JAMA 2014; 312 (18) 1880-1887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Xue Y, Chen Y, Ayub Q , et al; 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. Deleterious- and disease-allele prevalence in healthy individuals: insights from current predictions, mutation databases, and population-scale resequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2012; 91 (6) 1022-1032
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Hunt KA, Smyth DJ, Balschun T , et al; Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium; UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Genetics Consortium; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. Rare and functional SIAE variants are not associated with autoimmune disease risk in up to 66,924 individuals of European ancestry. Nat Genet 2012; 44 (1) 3-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Brown EJ, Pollak MR, Barua M. Genetic testing for nephrotic syndrome and FSGS in the era of next-generation sequencing. Kidney Int 2014; 85 (5) 1030-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hwang DY, Dworschak GC, Kohl S , et al. Mutations in 12 known dominant disease-causing genes clarify many congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract. Kidney Int 2014; 85 (6) 1429-1433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Lemaire M, Frémeaux-Bacchi V, Schaefer F , et al. Recessive mutations in DGKE cause atypical hemolytic-uremic syndrome. Nat Genet 2013; 45 (5) 531-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Otto EA, Ramaswami G, Janssen S , et al; GPN Study Group. Mutation analysis of 18 nephronophthisis associated ciliopathy disease genes using a DNA pooling and next generation sequencing strategy. J Med Genet 2011; 48 (2) 105-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Douglas AP, Vance DR, Kenny EM, Morris DW, Maxwell AP, McKnight AJ. Next-generation sequencing of the mitochondrial genome and association with IgA nephropathy in a renal transplant population. Sci Rep 2014; 4: 7379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Lister R, Pelizzola M, Dowen RH , et al. Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 2009; 462 (7271) 315-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Pieterse E, van der Vlag J. Breaking immunological tolerance in systemic lupus erythematosus. Front Immunol 2014; 5: 164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Ballereau S, Glaab E, Kolodkin A , et al. Functional genomics, proteomics, metabolomics and bioinformatics for systems biology. In: Prokop B, , ed. Systems Biology. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media; 2013: 3-41
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Beckerman P, Ko YA, Susztak K. Epigenetics: a new way to look at kidney diseases. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2014; 29 (10) 1821-1827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Furey TS. ChIP-seq and beyond: new and improved methodologies to detect and characterize protein-DNA interactions. Nat Rev Genet 2012; 13 (12) 840-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Zentner GE, Henikoff S. Regulation of nucleosome dynamics by histone modifications. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2013; 20 (3) 259-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Rivera CM, Ren B. Mapping human epigenomes. Cell 2013; 155 (1) 39-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Banerjee T, Chakravarti D. A peek into the complex realm of histone phosphorylation. Mol Cell Biol 2011; 31 (24) 4858-4873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Liu Y, Liu K, Qin S, Xu C, Min J. Epigenetic targets and drug discovery: part 1: histone methylation. Pharmacol Ther 2014; 143 (3) 275-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Meyer CA, Liu XS. Identifying and mitigating bias in next-generation sequencing methods for chromatin biology. Nat Rev Genet 2014; 15 (11) 709-721
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Smith ZD, Meissner A. DNA methylation: roles in mammalian development. Nat Rev Genet 2013; 14 (3) 204-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Mill J, Heijmans BT. From promises to practical strategies in epigenetic epidemiology. Nat Rev Genet 2013; 14 (8) 585-594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Heijmans BT, Mill J. Commentary: The seven plagues of epigenetic epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 2012; 41 (1) 74-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Woroniecki R, Gaikwad AB, Susztak K. Fetal environment, epigenetics, and pediatric renal disease. Pediatr Nephrol 2011; 26 (5) 705-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Woo YM, Bae JB, Oh YH , et al. Genome-wide methylation profiling of ADPKD identified epigenetically regulated genes associated with renal cyst development. Hum Genet 2014; 133 (3) 281-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Xia S, Li X, Johnson T, Seidel C, Wallace DP, Li R. Polycystin-dependent fluid flow sensing targets histone deacetylase 5 to prevent the development of renal cysts. Development 2010; 137 (7) 1075-1084
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Deng Y, Tsao BP. Advances in lupus genetics and epigenetics. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2014; 26 (5) 482-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 McHale CM, Zhang L, Thomas R, Smith MT. Analysis of the transcriptome in molecular epidemiology studies. Environ Mol Mutagen 2013; 54 (7) 500-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Lahens NF, Kavakli IH, Zhang R , et al. IVT-seq reveals extreme bias in RNA sequencing. Genome Biol 2014; 15 (6) R86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet 2009; 10 (1) 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Milek M, Wyler E, Landthaler M. Transcriptome-wide analysis of protein-RNA interactions using high-throughput sequencing. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2012; 23 (2) 206-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Zhang C, Darnell RB. Mapping in vivo protein-RNA interactions at single-nucleotide resolution from HITS-CLIP data. Nat Biotechnol 2011; 29 (7) 607-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Shi L, Zhang Z, Yu AM , et al. The SLE transcriptome exhibits evidence of chronic endotoxin exposure and has widespread dysregulation of non-coding and coding RNAs. PLoS ONE 2014; 9 (5) e93846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Abulaban KM, Brunner HI. Biomarkers for childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2015; 17 (1) 471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Ben-Dov IZ, Tan YC, Morozov P , et al. Urine microRNA as potential biomarkers of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease progression: description of miRNA profiles at baseline. PLoS ONE 2014; 9 (1) e86856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Shapiro MD, Bagley J, Latz J , et al. MicroRNA expression data reveals a signature of kidney damage following ischemia reperfusion injury. PLoS ONE 2011; 6 (8) e23011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Marrone AK, Ho J. MicroRNAs: potential regulators of renal development genes that contribute to CAKUT. Pediatr Nephrol 2014; 29 (4) 565-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Lin SY, Hsu WH, Lin CC, Chen CJ. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics in Chest Medicine, Gerontology, and Nephrology: subgroups omics for personalized medicine. Biomedicine (Taipei) 2014; 4: 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Käll L, Vitek O. Computational mass spectrometry-based proteomics. PLOS Comput Biol 2011; 7 (12) e1002277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Klein J, Lacroix C, Caubet C , et al. Fetal urinary peptides to predict postnatal outcome of renal disease in fetuses with posterior urethral valves (PUV). Sci Transl Med 2013; 5 (198) 198ra106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Abdennadher W, Chalouhi G, Dreux S , et al. Fetal urine biochemistry at 13-23 weeks in low urinary tract obstruction: criteria for in utero treatment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; ; In press. Doi: 10.1002/uog.14734
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Schanstra JP, Mischak H. Proteomic urinary biomarker approach in renal disease: from discovery to implementation. Pediatr Nephrol 2015; 30 (5) 713-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Smolinska A, Blanchet L, Buydens LM, Wijmenga SS. NMR and pattern recognition methods in metabolomics: from data acquisition to biomarker discovery: a review. Anal Chim Acta 2012; 750: 82-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Dharuri H, Demirkan A, van Klinken JB , et al. Genetics of the human metabolome, what is next?. Biochim Biophys Acta 2014; 1842 (10) 1923-1931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Patti GJ, Yanes O, Siuzdak G. Innovation: Metabolomics: the apogee of the omics trilogy. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2012; 13 (4) 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Blydt-Hansen TD, Sharma A, Gibson IW, Mandal R, Wishart DS. Urinary metabolomics for noninvasive detection of borderline and acute T cell-mediated rejection in children after kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2014; 14 (10) 2339-2349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Hanna MH, Brophy PD. Metabolomics in pediatric nephrology: emerging concepts. Pediatr Nephrol 2015; 30 (6) 881-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Conesa A, Mortazavi A. The common ground of genomics and systems biology. BMC Syst Biol 2014; 8 (Suppl. 02) S1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Doi N, Zenno S, Ueda R, Ohki-Hamazaki H, Ui-Tei K, Saigo K. Short-interfering-RNA-mediated gene silencing in mammalian cells requires Dicer and eIF2C translation initiation factors. Curr Biol 2003; 13 (1) 41-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Giles RH, Ajzenberg H, Jackson PK. 3D spheroid model of mIMCD3 cells for studying ciliopathies and renal epithelial disorders. Nat Protoc 2014; 9 (12) 2725-2731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Ekker SC. Morphants: a new systematic vertebrate functional genomics approach. Yeast 2000; 17 (4) 302-306
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Hwang WY, Fu Y, Reyon D , et al. Heritable and precise zebrafish genome editing using a CRISPR-Cas system. PLoS ONE 2013; 8 (7) e68708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Orban PC, Chui D, Marth JD. Tissue- and site-specific DNA recombination in transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992; 89 (15) 6861-6865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Reyes-Herrera PH, Ficarra E. Computational Methods for CLIP-seq Data Processing. Bioinform Biol Insights 2014; 8: 199-207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Mischak H, Allmaier G, Apweiler R , et al. Recommendations for biomarker identification and qualification in clinical proteomics. Sci Transl Med 2010; 2 (46) 46ps42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Abecasis GR, Auton A, Brooks LD , et al; 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature 2012; 491 (7422) 56-65
    Google Scholar
  • 103 Blake JA, Bult CJ, Eppig JT, Kadin JA, Richardson JE ; Mouse Genome Database Group. The Mouse Genome Database: integration of and access to knowledge about the laboratory mouse. Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42 (Database issue): D810-D817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Eckhardt F, Beck S, Gut IG, Berlin K. Future potential of the Human Epigenome Project. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2004; 4 (5) 609-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Consortium EP ; ENCODE Project Consortium. A user's guide to the encyclopedia of DNA elements (ENCODE). PLoS Biol 2011; 9 (4) e1001046
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Brandenberger R, Khrebtukova I, Thies RS , et al. MPSS profiling of human embryonic stem cells. BMC Dev Biol 2004; 4: 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Vizcaíno JA, Côté RG, Csordas A , et al. The PRoteomics IDEntifications (PRIDE) database and associated tools: status in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res 2013; 41 (Database issue) D1063-D1069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Wishart DS, Jewison T, Guo AC , et al. HMDB 3.0—The Human Metabolome Database in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res 2013; 41 (Database issue): D801-D807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Cohen CD, Kretzler M. Gene expression analyses of kidney biopsies: the European renal cDNA bank—Kröner-Fresenius biopsy bank [in German]. Pathologe 2009; 30 (2) 101-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 EURenOmics Available at: http://www.eurenomics.eu/home/ . Accessed January 1, 2015
    PubMed
  • 111 McMahon AP, Aronow BJ, Davidson DR , et al; GUDMAP project. GUDMAP: the genitourinary developmental molecular anatomy project. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19 (4) 667-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Harding SD, Armit C, Armstrong J , et al. The GUDMAP database—an online resource for genitourinary research. Development 2011; 138 (13) 2845-2853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Gadegbeku CA, Gipson DS, Holzman LB , et al. Design of the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) to evaluate primary glomerular nephropathy by a multidisciplinary approach. Kidney Int 2013; 83 (4) 749-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Rieber N, Zapatka M, Lasitschka B , et al. Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. PLoS ONE 2013; 8 (6) e66621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Hatem A, Bozdağ D, Toland AE, Çatalyürek ÜV. Benchmarking short sequence mapping tools. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14: 184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Xue Y, Ankala A, Wilcox WR, Hegde MR. Solving the molecular diagnostic testing conundrum for Mendelian disorders in the era of next-generation sequencing: single-gene, gene panel, or exome/genome sequencing. Genet Med 2015; 17: 444-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Buenrostro JD, Giresi PG, Zaba LC, Chang HY, Greenleaf WJ. Transposition of native chromatin for fast and sensitive epigenomic profiling of open chromatin, DNA-binding proteins and nucleosome position. Nat Methods 2013; 10 (12) 1213-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Giresi PG, Kim J, McDaniell RM, Iyer VR, Lieb JD. FAIRE (Formaldehyde-Assisted Isolation of Regulatory Elements) isolates active regulatory elements from human chromatin. Genome Res 2007; 17 (6) 877-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Harris RA, Wang T, Coarfa C , et al. Comparison of sequencing-based methods to profile DNA methylation and identification of monoallelic epigenetic modifications. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28 (10) 1097-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 120 Kawaji H, Lizio M, Itoh M , et al; FANTOM Consortium. Comparison of CAGE and RNA-seq transcriptome profiling using clonally amplified and single-molecule next-generation sequencing. Genome Res 2014; 24 (4) 708-717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 121 Annesley TM. Ion suppression in mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 2003; 49 (7) 1041-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 122 Perry RH, Cooks RG, Noll RJ. Orbitrap mass spectrometry: instrumentation, ion motion and applications. Mass Spectrom Rev 2008; 27 (6) 661-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar