4.5 Review

Blinders, phenotype, and fashionable genetic analysis: A critical examination of the current state of epilepsy genetic studies

Journal

EPILEPSIA
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 1-9

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02734.x

Keywords

Genetic analysis; Channelopathy; Phenotype; Genetic heterogeneity; Psychiatric genetics

Funding

  1. NIH [NS27941, MH48858, NS61829, MH65213, NS070323]
  2. New York State Psychiatric Institute
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH048858, T32MH065213] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS061829, R01NS047530, R01NS027941, R21NS070323] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Although it is accepted that idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) is strongly, if not exclusively, influenced by genetic factors, there is little consensus on what those genetic influences may be, except for one point of agreement: epilepsy is a channelopathy. This point of agreement has continued despite the failure of studies investigating channel genes to demonstrate the primacy of their influence on IGE expression. The belief is sufficiently entrenched that the more important issues involving phenotype definition, data collection, methods of analysis, and the interpretation of results have become subordinate to it. The goal of this article is to spark discussion of where the study of epilepsy genetics has been and where it is going, suggesting we may never get there if we continue on the current road. We use the long history of psychiatric genetic studies as a mirror and starting point to illustrate that only when we expand our outlook on how to study the genetics of the epilepsies, consider other mechanisms that could lead to epilepsy susceptibility, and, especially, focus on the critical problem of phenotype definition, will the major influences on common epilepsy begin to be understood.

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