4.5 Review

Quantitative Genetics in the Era of Molecular Genetics: Learning Abilities and Disabilities as an Example

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.01.026

关键词

quantitative genetics; molecular genetics; twin studies; learning abilities and disabilities

资金

  1. U K Medical Research Council [G050079]
  2. Wellcome Trust [WT084728]
  3. U S National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [HD44454]
  4. MRC/ESRC [G0802681]
  5. MRC [G0500079, G0802681, G19/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [G0802681, G0500079, G19/2, G9817803B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To consider recent findings from quantitative genetic research in the context of molecular genetic research, especially genome-wide association studies. We focus on findings that go beyond merely estimating heritability We use learning abilities and disabilities as examples. Method: Recent twin research in the area of learning abilities and disabilities was reviewed Results: Three findings from quantitative genetic research stand out for their far-reaching implications for child and adolescent psychiatry First, common disorders such as learning difficulties are the quantitative extreme of the same genetic factors responsible for genetic influence throughout the normal distribution (the Common Disorders are Quantitative Traits Hypothesis) Second, the same set of genes is largely responsible for genetic influence across diverse learning and cognitive abilities and disabilities (the Generalist Genes Hypothesis). Third, experiences are just as influenced genetically as are behaviors and genetic factors mediate associations between widely used measures of the environment and behavioural outcomes (the Nature of Nurture Hypothesis) Conclusions: Quantitative genetics can go far beyond the rudimentary how much question about nature versus nurture, and can continue to provide important findings in the era of molecular genetics J Am. Acad. Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2010;49(8) 783-793

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据