ReViA: Regulatory Variants Annotation Pipeline


Abstract

Motivation. Most disease-associated variants identified in genome-wide association studies are located in non-coding regions, where their functional interpretation remains challenging. Unlike coding mutations, non-coding single nucleotide variants (SNVs) often act through gene regulation, making their effects less direct. Existing tools, including pre-trained machine learning models and annotation databases, provide useful resources but are limited when analyzing new datasets or uncovering cohort-specific biology. A method that integrates user-supplied multi-omics data while producing interpretable results may help address this gap.
Results. We present ReViA, a pipeline for annotating non-coding SNVs by integrating gene expression, chromatin activity (e.g., ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq), and variant data from the same cohort of samples. This design allows the identification of variants that may be specific to the studied group and relevant for gene regulation. Unlike pre-trained approaches, ReViA adapts to the input dataset, and unlike static databases, it can analyze any set of SNVs, including those not previously reported. ReViA outputs statistical evidence and graphical summaries for all analyses, enabling users to critically assess findings. We illustrate its use on datasets from glioma and Alzheimer’s disease, where the pipeline highlighted candidate regulatory variants with potential functional impact supported by external evidence. These case studies demonstrate how ReViA can generate biologically informed hypotheses about regulatory variation in disease contexts. In summary, ReViA provides a flexible and interpretable framework for the annotation of non-coding SNVs, complementing existing resources by focusing on cohort-specific, evidence-based analysis.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].