4.6 Review

Twelve years of GWAS discoveries for osteoporosis and related traits: advances, challenges and applications

期刊

BONE RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41413-021-00143-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81871831, 32061143019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteoporosis, a common skeletal disease, is influenced by various factors such as diet, physical activity, endocrine status, coexisting diseases, and genetic factors. Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in the past 12 years have identified many loci associated with bone health, but more genetic studies in diverse populations are needed for better disease prediction.
Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disease, affecting similar to 200 million people around the world. As a complex disease, osteoporosis is influenced by many factors, including diet (e.g. calcium and protein intake), physical activity, endocrine status, coexisting diseases and genetic factors. In this review, we first summarize the discovery from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in the bone field in the last 12 years. To date, GWASs and meta-analyses have discovered hundreds of loci that are associated with bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporosis, and osteoporotic fractures. However, the GWAS approach has sometimes been criticized because of the small effect size of the discovered variants and the mystery of missing heritability, these two questions could be partially explained by the newly raised conceptual models, such as omnigenic model and natural selection. Finally, we introduce the clinical use of GWAS findings in the bone field, such as the identification of causal clinical risk factors, the development of drug targets and disease prediction. Despite the fruitful GWAS discoveries in the bone field, most of these GWAS participants were of European descent, and more genetic studies should be carried out in other ethnic populations to benefit disease prediction in the corresponding population.

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

4.6
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