Cell, Vol. 124, No. 5. (10 March 2006), pp. 1069-1081, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2005.12.036
Cell, Vol. 124, No. 5. (10 March 2006), pp. 1069-1081, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2005.12.036
Brief posts on genetics and genomics, highlighting new results, good writing and important ideas.
Genome-wide association studies have identified hundreds of genetic variants associated with complex human diseases and traits, and have provided valuable insights into their genetic architecture. Most variants identified so far confer relatively small increments in risk, and explain only a small proportion of familial clustering, leading many to question how the remaining, ‘missing’ heritability can be explained. Here we examine potential sources of missing heritability.In April, I cited an excellent article by McClellan and King, who argued that "many rare alleles account for common diseases". Now, Johansen et al. (Nature Genetics Aug. 2010), in "An excess of rare variants in genes identified by genome-wide association study of hypertriglyceridemia" provide evidence that many such rare variants can be found by sequencing a small number of candidate genes in affected individuals. Although the variants described in this study increase the proportion of genetic variation explained only incrementally, it is likely that they have only skimmed the surface (since sequencing was limited to coding regions). This article follows similar results looking at candidate genes (Romeo et al. 2009). "Pooled association [statistical] tests for rare variants in exon-resequencing studies" have already been developed (Price et al. 2010), and it is reasonable to believe that these methods can be extended to complete genome sequencing data. Thus, it appears that the analysis of rare variants will be increasingly common, and will explain much of the missing heritability.
It has recently been suggested that conducting genetic studies with increasingly larger cohorts will be relatively uninformative for the biology of complex human disease, particularly if initial studies have failed to explain a sizable fraction of the heritability of the disease in question (Goldstein 2009). As the reasoning goes, analysis of a few thousand individuals will uncover the common variants with the strongest effect on phenotype. Larger studies will suffer from a plateau phenomenon in which either no additional common variants will be found or any common variants that are identified will have too small an effect to be of biological interest.This recent work provides optimism the heritability underlying complex human genetic disease will be found, in the form of both more genes and more variants per gene.
Our study provides strong empirical evidence against this assertion. We extended a GWAS for plasma lipids from ~20,000 to ~100,000 individuals and identified 95 loci (of which 59 are novel) that, in aggregate, explain 10–12% of the total variance (representing ~25–30% of the genetic variance). ... We expect that future investigations of the new loci (for example, resequencing efforts to identify low-frequency and rare variants, or functional experiments in cells and animal models, as demonstrated for SORT1 in a separate study reported in the accompanying paper [Musunuru et al.]) will uncover additional important new genes.
I certainly recognize the need to insure that test results are valid. However, I'm not sure that goes beyond CLIA certification. I also recognize the need to protect consumers from misinformation and bad advice from the unqualified. However, I'm not sure that is within the FDA's purview. My main point is that secure and private access to reliable personal genetic information is a valuable thing that does not put the consumer at undo risk.That said, regulations that protect consumers from bad advice may be appropriate. However, it's going to be tricky, because we're talking about regulation of speech and education. I hope that the regulations are written in a way that encourages the broad dissemination of genetic knowledge from the many reliable sources currently available.
...
"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller fleas that bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum."
...
The study of telomeres is notable as a field of research in which female scientists are particularly prominent. Dr. Greider said she ascribed this to a “founder effect,” the founder being Joseph Gall of Yale University. Dr. Gall trained Dr. Blackburn and other women, and they recruited others to the field “because there is a slight tendency for women to work with other women,” Dr. Greider said. She herself trained with Dr. Blackburn.One of those "other women" was my own thesis advisor, Joan Steitz. Another woman who is just offstage in this story is Barbara McClintock, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for the discovery of mobile genetic elements, but whose work on the instability of broken chromosome ends (1941 in Genetics: "The stability of broken ends of chromosomes in Zea Mays") was an important part of the background that prepared people for the discovery of telomeres (if broken ends were unstable, then normal ends had to be somehow different).


