4.5 Letter

GWAS for BMI: a treasure trove of fundamental insights into the genetic basis of obesity

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
Volume 42, Issue 8, Pages 1524-1531

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41366-018-0147-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. UK Royal Society
  2. National Science Foundation of China microevolution program [NSFC 91731303]
  3. NIH [R01DK110113, U01HG007417, R01DK101855, R01DK107786, R25DK099080, R25HL124208]
  4. MRC [G0900554, MC_UU_12012/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R25HL124208] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [U01HG007417] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK101855, R01DK107786, R25DK099080, R01DK110113, R01DK075787] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Muller et al. [1] have provided a strong critique of the Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) of body-mass index (BMI), arguing that the GWAS approach for the study of BMI is flawed, and has provided us with few biological insights. They suggest that what is needed instead is a new start, involving GWAS for more complex energy balance related traits. In this invited counter-point, we highlight the substantial advances that have occurred in the obesity field, directly stimulated by the GWAS of BMI. We agree that GWAS for BMI is not perfect, but consider that the best route forward for additional discoveries will likely be to expand the search for common and rare variants linked to BMI and other easily obtained measures of obesity, rather than attempting to perform new, much smaller GWAS for energy balance traits that are complex and expensive to measure. For GWAS in general, we emphasise that the power from increasing the sample size of a crude but easily measured phenotype outweighs the benefits of better phenotyping.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available