4.4 Article

Traversing the conceptual divide between biological and statistical epistasis: Systems biology and a more modern synthesis

期刊

BIOESSAYS
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 637-646

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bies.20236

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR000095] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL65234] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAID NIH HHS [AI59694] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NICHD NIH HHS [HD047447] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epistasis plays an important role in the genetic architecture of common human diseases and can be viewed from two perspectives, biological and statistical, each derived from and leading to different assumptions and research strategies. Biological epistasis is the result of physical interactions among biomolecules within gene regulatory networks and biochemical pathways in an individual such that the effect of a gene on a phenotype is dependent on one or more other genes. In contrast, statistical epistasis is defined as deviation from additivity in a mathematical model summarizing the relationship between multilocus genotypes and phenotypic variation in a population. The goal of this essay is to review definitions and examples of biological and statistical epistasis and to explore the relationship between the two. Specifically, we present and discuss the following two questions in the context of human health and disease. First, when does statistical evidence of epistasis in human populations imply underlying biomolecular interactions in the etiology of disease? Second, when do biomolecular interactions produce patterns of statistical epistasis in human populations? Answers to these two reciprocal questions will provide an important framework for using genetic information to improve our ability to diagnose, prevent and treat common human diseases. We propose that systems biology will provide the necessary information for addressing these questions and that model systems such as bacteria, yeast and digital organisms will be a useful place to start. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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