Christopher F Chabris1, James J Lee, Daniel J Benjamin, Jonathan P Beauchamp, Edward L Glaeser, Gregoire Borst, Steven Pinker, David I Laibson. 1. Christopher F. Chabris is with the Department of Psychology, Union College, Schenectady, NY. James J. Lee, Gregoire Borst, and Steven Pinker are with the Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Daniel J. Benjamin is with the Department of Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Jonathan P. Beauchamp, Edward L. Glaeser, and David I. Laibson are with the Department of Economics, Harvard University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We explain why traits of interest to behavioral scientists may have a genetic architecture featuring hundreds or thousands of loci with tiny individual effects rather than a few with large effects and why such an architecture makes it difficult to find robust associations between traits and genes. METHODS: We conducted a genome-wide association study at 2 sites, Harvard University and Union College, measuring more than 100 physical and behavioral traits with a sample size typical of candidate gene studies. We evaluated predictions that alleles with large effect sizes would be rare and most traits of interest to social science are likely characterized by a lack of strong directional selection. We also carried out a theoretical analysis of the genetic architecture of traits based on R.A. Fisher's geometric model of natural selection and empirical analyses of the effects of selection bias and phenotype measurement stability on the results of genetic association studies. RESULTS: Although we replicated several known genetic associations with physical traits, we found only 2 associations with behavioral traits that met the nominal genome-wide significance threshold, indicating that physical and behavioral traits are mainly affected by numerous genes with small effects. CONCLUSIONS: The challenge for social science genomics is the likelihood that genes are connected to behavioral variation by lengthy, nonlinear, interactive causal chains, and unraveling these chains requires allying with personal genomics to take advantage of the potential for large sample sizes as well as continuing with traditional epidemiological studies.
OBJECTIVES: We explain why traits of interest to behavioral scientists may have a genetic architecture featuring hundreds or thousands of loci with tiny individual effects rather than a few with large effects and why such an architecture makes it difficult to find robust associations between traits and genes. METHODS: We conducted a genome-wide association study at 2 sites, Harvard University and Union College, measuring more than 100 physical and behavioral traits with a sample size typical of candidate gene studies. We evaluated predictions that alleles with large effect sizes would be rare and most traits of interest to social science are likely characterized by a lack of strong directional selection. We also carried out a theoretical analysis of the genetic architecture of traits based on R.A. Fisher's geometric model of natural selection and empirical analyses of the effects of selection bias and phenotype measurement stability on the results of genetic association studies. RESULTS: Although we replicated several known genetic associations with physical traits, we found only 2 associations with behavioral traits that met the nominal genome-wide significance threshold, indicating that physical and behavioral traits are mainly affected by numerous genes with small effects. CONCLUSIONS: The challenge for social science genomics is the likelihood that genes are connected to behavioral variation by lengthy, nonlinear, interactive causal chains, and unraveling these chains requires allying with personal genomics to take advantage of the potential for large sample sizes as well as continuing with traditional epidemiological studies.
Authors: Catarina D Campbell; Elizabeth L Ogburn; Kathryn L Lunetta; Helen N Lyon; Matthew L Freedman; Leif C Groop; David Altshuler; Kristin G Ardlie; Joel N Hirschhorn Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2005-07-24 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: M F Gosso; E J C de Geus; M J van Belzen; T J C Polderman; P Heutink; D I Boomsma; D Posthuma Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2006-06-27 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Andreas Papassotiropoulos; Dietrich A Stephan; Matthew J Huentelman; Frederic J Hoerndli; David W Craig; John V Pearson; Kim-Dung Huynh; Fabienne Brunner; Jason Corneveaux; David Osborne; M Axel Wollmer; Amanda Aerni; Daniel Coluccia; Jürgen Hänggi; Christian R A Mondadori; Andreas Buchmann; Eric M Reiman; Richard J Caselli; Katharina Henke; Dominique J-F de Quervain Journal: Science Date: 2006-10-20 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: M F Egan; T E Goldberg; B S Kolachana; J H Callicott; C M Mazzanti; R E Straub; D Goldman; D R Weinberger Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-05-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: A Payton; F Holland; P Diggle; P Rabbitt; M Horan; Y Davidson; L Gibbons; J Worthington; W E R Ollier; N Pendleton Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: R Plomin; D M Turic; L Hill; D E Turic; M Stephens; J Williams; M J Owen; M C O'Donovan Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Seth Madlon-Kay; Michael J Montague; Lauren J N Brent; Samuel Ellis; Brian Zhong; Noah Snyder-Mackler; Julie E Horvath; Jesse Haynes Pate Skene; Michael L Platt Journal: Am J Primatol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 2.371