4.6 Article

Beyond Missing Heritability: Prediction of Complex Traits

Journal

PLOS GENETICS
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002051

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [T32 HL072757, T32-HL007457]
  2. National Institute of Digestive and Kidney Disorders [R01 DK076771]
  3. [R01DK076771]
  4. [R01GM077490]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite rapid advances in genomic technology, our ability to account for phenotypic variation using genetic information remains limited for many traits. This has unfortunately resulted in limited application of genetic data towards preventive and personalized medicine, one of the primary impetuses of genome-wide association studies. Recently, a large proportion of the missing heritability for human height was statistically explained by modeling thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms concurrently. However, it is currently unclear how gains in explained genetic variance will translate to the prediction of yet-to-be observed phenotypes. Using data from the Framingham Heart Study, we explore the genomic prediction of human height in training and validation samples while varying the statistical approach used, the number of SNPs included in the model, the validation scheme, and the number of subjects used to train the model. In our training datasets, we are able to explain a large proportion of the variation in height (h(2) up to 0.83, R-2 up to 0.96). However, the proportion of variance accounted for in validation samples is much smaller (ranging from 0.15 to 0.36 depending on the degree of familial information used in the training dataset). While such R-2 values vastly exceed what has been previously reported using a reduced number of pre-selected markers (< 0.10), given the heritability of the trait (similar to 0.80), substantial room for improvement remains.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available