Literature DB >> 28194764

Commentary: What is the case for candidate gene approaches in the era of high-throughput genomics? A response to Border and Keller (2017).

Sarah R Moore1,2.   

Abstract

Border and Keller argue that candidate gene approaches are outdated and out-of-touch with the current understanding of the genetic architecture of complex behavioral traits and should be abandoned in favor of unbiased, genome-wide approaches. Border and Keller further suggest that a candidate gene should not be selected for in-depth investigation unless identified by a well-powered genome-wide association study (GWAS). An alternative perspective is offered that candidate approaches can be sensible for developmental and deep-phenotyping studies aimed at elucidating particular biological pathways responsible for the emergence of psychological phenotypes, and that candidates should not necessarily be expected to be confirmed by, or solely selected based on, GWAS. Both candidate and whole genome strategies have limitations, and each approach is useful and valid in the quest to identify the elusive genetic architecture of complex behavioral phenotypes.
© 2017 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28194764     DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12697

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry        ISSN: 0021-9630            Impact factor:   8.982


  9 in total

1.  Reply to Lyon et al.: Self-regulation and the foraging gene: From flies to humans.

Authors:  Marla B Sokolowski; Abigail A Scholer; James Danckert
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  No Support for Historical Candidate Gene or Candidate Gene-by-Interaction Hypotheses for Major Depression Across Multiple Large Samples.

Authors:  Richard Border; Emma C Johnson; Luke M Evans; Andrew Smolen; Noah Berley; Patrick F Sullivan; Matthew C Keller
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 18.112

3.  Romantic Partner Alcohol Misuse Interacts with GABRA2 Genotype to Predict Frequency of Drunkenness in Young Adulthood.

Authors:  Jamie M Gajos; Michael A Russell; H Harrington Cleveland; David J Vandenbergh; Mark E Feinberg
Journal:  J Contemp Crim Justice       Date:  2018-11-08

Review 4.  Childhood Trauma and Epigenetics: State of the Science and Future.

Authors:  N Gladish; S M Merrill; Michael S Kobor
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2022-10-15

5.  G2PMineR: A Genome to Phenome Literature Review Approach.

Authors:  John M A Wojahn; Stephanie J Galla; Anthony E Melton; Sven Buerki
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 4.096

6.  Sex differences in the genetic regulation of the blood transcriptome response to glucocorticoid receptor activation.

Authors:  Sarah R Moore; Thorhildur Halldorsdottir; Jade Martins; Susanne Lucae; Bertram Müller-Myhsok; Nikola S Müller; Charlotte Piechaczek; Lisa Feldmann; Franz Joseph Freisleder; Ellen Greimel; Gerd Schulte-Körne; Elisabeth B Binder; Janine Arloth
Journal:  Transl Psychiatry       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 6.222

7.  Preliminary Evidence That the Short Allele of 5-HTTLPR Moderates the Association of Psychiatric Symptom Severity on Suicide Attempt: The Example in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

Authors:  Ghina Harika-Germaneau; Claire Lafay-Chebassier; Nicolas Langbour; Bérangère Thirioux; Issa Wassouf; Xavier Noël; Nemat Jaafari; Armand Chatard
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 5.435

8.  Genome Wide Prediction, Mapping and Development of Genomic Resources of Mastitis Associated Genes in Water Buffalo.

Authors:  Sarika Jaiswal; Jaisri Jagannadham; Juli Kumari; Mir Asif Iquebal; Anoop Kishor Singh Gurjar; Varij Nayan; Ulavappa B Angadi; Sunil Kumar; Rakesh Kumar; Tirtha Kumar Datta; Anil Rai; Dinesh Kumar
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-06-18

9.  Gene-Environment Interactions Relevant to Estrogen and Risk of Breast Cancer: Can Gene-Environment Interactions Be Detected Only among Candidate SNPs from Genome-Wide Association Studies?

Authors:  JooYong Park; Ji-Yeob Choi; Jaesung Choi; Seokang Chung; Nan Song; Sue K Park; Wonshik Han; Dong-Young Noh; Sei-Hyun Ahn; Jong Won Lee; Mi Kyung Kim; Sun Ha Jee; Wanqing Wen; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Kyriaki Michailidou; Mitul Shah; Don M Conroy; Patricia A Harrington; Rebecca Mayes; Kamila Czene; Per Hall; Lauren R Teras; Alpa V Patel; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; Elinor J Sawyer; Rebecca Roylance; Stig E Bojesen; Henrik Flyger; Diether Lambrechts; Adinda Baten; Keitaro Matsuo; Hidemi Ito; Pascal Guénel; Thérèse Truong; Renske Keeman; Marjanka K Schmidt; Anna H Wu; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Irene L Andrulis; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Pei-Ei Wu; Chen-Yang Shen; Peter A Fasching; Arif B Ekici; Kenneth Muir; Artitaya Lophatananon; Hermann Brenner; Volker Arndt; Michael E Jones; Anthony J Swerdlow; Reiner Hoppe; Yon-Dschun Ko; Mikael Hartman; Jingmei Li; Arto Mannermaa; Jaana M Hartikainen; Javier Benitez; Anna González-Neira; Christopher A Haiman; Thilo Dörk; Natalia V Bogdanova; Soo Hwang Teo; Nur Aishah Mohd Taib; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Mervi Grip; Robert Winqvist; Carl Blomqvist; Heli Nevanlinna; Annika Lindblom; Camilla Wendt; Vessela N Kristensen; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Bernadette A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; Paolo Radice; Bernardo Bonanni; Ute Hamann; Mehdi Manoochehri; James V Lacey; Maria Elena Martinez; Alison M Dunning; Paul D P Pharoah; Douglas F Easton; Keun-Young Yoo; Daehee Kang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 6.639

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.