4.5 Review

Sports genetics moving forward: lessons learned from medical research

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL GENOMICS
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 175-182

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00109.2015

关键词

sports genetics; individual differences; genetic testing; sports medicine; precision medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sports genetics can take advantage of lessons learned from human disease genetics. By righting past mistakes and increasing scientific rigor, we can magnify the breadth and depth of knowledge in the field. We present an outline of challenges facing sports genetics in the light of experiences from medical research. Sports performance is complex, resulting from a combination of a wide variety of different traits and attributes. Improving sports genetics will foremost require analyses based on detailed phenotyping. To find widely valid, reproducible common variants associated with athletic phenotypes, study sample sizes must be dramatically increased. One paradox is that in order to confirm relevance, replications in specific populations must be undertaken. Family studies of athletes may facilitate the discovery of rare variants with large effects on athletic phenotypes. The complexity of the human genome, combined with the complexity of athletic phenotypes, will require additional metadata and biological validation to identify a comprehensive set of genes involved. Analysis of personal genetic and multiomic profiles contribute to our conceptualization of precision medicine; the same will be the case in precision sports science. In the refinement of sports genetics it is essential to evaluate similarities and differences between sexes and among ethnicities. Sports genetics to date have been hampered by small sample sizes and biased methodology, which can lead to erroneous associations and overestimation of effect sizes. Consequently, currently available genetic tests based on these inherently limited data cannot predict athletic performance with any accuracy.

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