首页> 外文期刊>Carcinogenesis >Genome-wide association studies may be misinterpreted: genes versus heritability
【24h】

Genome-wide association studies may be misinterpreted: genes versus heritability

机译:全基因组关联研究可能会被曲解:基因与遗传力

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Much of the literature on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is based on the premise that an important proportion of common diseases is heritable and that this proportion is likely to be due to genetic variants detectable with extensive scans of the DNA. Heritability is estimated from family studies, including twin studies and is based on the comparison of the variation in disease among different members of particular families. Since there is a wide gap between the population variation in disease explained by the results of GWAS (usually 50%), the question arises as to how to explain these differences. However, the premise for this question is based on two sources of misunderstanding: (i) confusion between variation and causation and (ii) confusion between heritability and genetic determination. As we show with a number of examples, variation is not causation and heritability is not genetic determination. Therefore, heritability studies do not provide valid estimates of the proportion of disease cases that are attributable to genetic factors. Such estimates in turn cannot be used to estimate the proportion of cases that are due to environmental factors.
机译:有关全基因组关联研究(GWAS)的许多文献都基于这样一个前提,即常见疾病的重要部分是可遗传的,而这一部分很可能是由于DNA广泛扫描可检测到的遗传变异所致。遗传力是根据家庭研究(包括双胞胎研究)估算的,其基础是特定家庭不同成员之间疾病差异的比较。由于用GWAS的结果解释的疾病人群差异之间存在很大差距(通常为50%),因此出现了如何解释这些差异的问题。但是,此问题的前提是基于两个误解的来源:(i)变异与因果关系之间的混淆,以及(ii)遗传力与遗传测定之间的混淆。正如我们通过许多示例所示,变异不是因果关系,遗传力不是遗传决定因素。因此,遗传性研究没有提供可归因于遗传因素的疾病病例比例的有效估计。这样的估计又不能用来估计由于环境因素造成的案件比例。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Carcinogenesis》 |2011年第9期|p.1295-1298|共4页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号