4.6 Article

Genetic linkage of human height is confirmed to 9q22 and Xq24

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 119, 期 3, 页码 295-304

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-006-0136-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR45349-01, K01 AR02170-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM60402-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human height is an important and heritable trait. Our previous two genome-wide linkage studies using 630 (WG study) and an extended sample of 1,816 Caucasians (WG2 study) identified 9q22 [maximum LOD score (MLS) = 2.74 in the WG2 study] and preliminarily confirmed Xq24 (two-point LOD score= 1.91 in the WG1 study, 2.64 in the WG2 study) linked to height. Here, with a much further extended large sample containing 3,726 Caucasians, we performed a new genome-wide linkage scan and confirmed, in high significance, the two regions' linkage to height. An MLS of 4.34 was detected on 9q22 and a two-point LOD score of 5.63 was attained for Xq24. In an independent subsample (i.e., the subjects not involved in the WG 1 and WG2 studies), the two regions also achieved significant empirical P values (0.002 and 0.004, respectively) for region-wise linkage confirmation. Importantly, the two regions were replicated on a genotyping platform different from the WG1 and WG2 studies (i.e., a different set of markers and different genotyping instruments). Interestingly, 9q22 harbors the ROR2 gene, which is required for growth plate development, and Xq24 was linked to short stature. With the largest sample from a single population of the same ethnicity in the field of linkage studies for complex traits, our current study, together with two previous ones, provided overwhelming evidence substantiating 9q22 and Xq24 for height variation. In particular, our three consecutive whole genome studies are uniquely valuable as they represent the first practical (rather than simulated) example of how significant increase in sample size may improve linkage detection for human complex traits.

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