Nearly 700 Genetic Factors Found To Influence Human Adult Height 68
damn_registrars writes: A consortium of scientists from many different countries reviewed genome-wide association study data sets of over 250,000 individuals in a search for genetic factors that influence adult height. Looking at Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, the researchers found 697 distinct genetic markers that can explain some 20 percent of the heritability of human adult height. Previous studies had found around 180 such markers, but the larger sample set increased the ability to detect these changes, both within genes and in non-coding regions. Genes found in this set included ones from pathways not previously connected to skeletal growth.
This study is also significant for the sample size, which allows it to address whether the data from such large sets has a tendency to converge or diverge on genetic pathways; this study particularly favors the latter, which is of great utility toward studying other polygenetic conditions in the future. The original paper is likely paywalled, however the abstract is available for free and some of the collaborators behind it have other bits available for free in the meantime.
This study is also significant for the sample size, which allows it to address whether the data from such large sets has a tendency to converge or diverge on genetic pathways; this study particularly favors the latter, which is of great utility toward studying other polygenetic conditions in the future. The original paper is likely paywalled, however the abstract is available for free and some of the collaborators behind it have other bits available for free in the meantime.
hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it seems like a good sign. I took it to imply that there may be more (considerably more) than one way to get a particular result. Blue eyes, strength, intelligence, height, etc.
Just a thought. And I'm fairly cynical, too. :)
Looking forward to the day parents can definitively select for intelligent children.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot blond hair and a fanatical devotion to the Fuhrer.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no. I said "intelligent."
Blonde jokes to follow. I'll be here all night. Try the veal.
Re: (Score:2)
True but by studying redheads scientists can unlock how the soul interacts wight he body.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they can get past the dead skin. [rimshot]
Re: (Score:2)
In other news (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...just don't let her find out you're calling her a vegetable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and boatloads of caffeine. for that extra little bit of height that you can lord over your siblings.
Re: (Score:2)
and boatloads of caffeine. for that extra little bit of height that you can lord over your siblings.
Actually, it's been shown that caffeine (and nicotine) stunts growth.
Re: (Score:2)
The other 80% is explained by eating your vegetables. Thanks mom.
Probably more likely that it would be eating high protein sources.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm guessing that nutrition accounts for a large fraction of the remaining 80%.
My father is tall, my mother is about average, and her brothers are tall. Somehow I ended up being the shortest male in my family by about 4 inches.
It may be worth noting that I quit growing at age 13, but my father grew 2 inches after age 18. I suspect malnutrition in my case, since I was always underweight as a kid. I finally started eating properly after college, and I gained 25 lbs. I went from a BMI of 18-19 to a BMI of 22-2
Height is complicated (Score:1)
I suspect almost every gene will have some sort of effect on height, however small. Development, metabolism, each of the senses and the effect they would have on preferred food, immune system and sickliness, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you are the product, not the customer. if you don't like it, stop prostrating yourself in front of Dice's customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are all these tall women? 6ft is about 1.83m! As a >6ft Man, almost all the women (>95%) I meet are under 6ft, the majority are around 5ft, and quite a lot are smaller. So unless you spend all your time hanging around womens basketball teams, I call bs quite frankly.
Yes, humans are getting taller, but I don't think we are at the majority of women being >6ft, or anywhere near it.
Invader Zim (Score:2)
I look forward to the day when humankind are ruled by our own Almighty Tallest.
Not news: GWAS Often Fail (Score:5, Informative)
To be brutally honest, it's not surprising that yet another genome-wide association study has failed to explain even half of the heritability of a trait / disease / condition.
There's plenty of literature out there arguing whether these studies are a waste of money or not:
* http://blog.goldenhelix.com/?p... [goldenhelix.com]
* http://scienceblogs.com/geneti... [scienceblogs.com]
* http://gettinggeneticsdone.blo... [blogspot.com.au]
I would have been surprised if this study did find the majority of inherited variability in height.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here's the list of authors:
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read my comment: I didn't say it was a useless study, just the the approach (GWAS) has not surprisingly failed to identify the majority of the inherited variability in height.
That these studies regularly fail to do this is hardly a secret or controversial, and is well known in the field: it simply just isn't news.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you're not thinking all these authors contributed equally. They did not. I'd venture a (well educated) guess that most of them "merely" had part of the data, and provided that in exhange for a name in publication. Most probably made their undergrads to do the analysis, so they could only share the results for meta analysis, instead of the raw data. So the the undergrads got their names in, too.
Furthermore, all the authors are using the same method (GWAS) so it's onl
Re: (Score:2)
I counted 445 authors on this publication. The author list is so long that they had to put it in the back pages.
When I was an undergrad, I remember the discovery of the top quark having a billion of authors. I counted and it had only 436 authors, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103%2FPh... [doi.org]
The top quark author list motivated me to get out of high energy physics and into biophysics. I am sure there are papers out there with even longer author lists, but I am always glad to see significant papers with shorter lists as w
size matters (Score:5, Insightful)
The significant thing to note here is that height is important. It wouldn't be studied otherwise. If you want to succeed in politics or upper management or any endeavor in which you are judged by others, you should be tall. Man or woman (but especially men), it makes no difference- you must be tall.
You may be a great scientist or programmer or advertising copywriter, but unless you are tall you won't get credit for your work. It will go to your boss who is tall and doesn't even understand what you do.
Exceptions include Hitler, Napoleon many comedians and malcontents and criminals... You have some in your family, you've seen them on TV. And why do short people act out? Because they feel the pressure that short people feel. They are never accepted, never quite good enough due to their stature. They overcompensate.
When we learn to judge others by their merit, rather than their sometimes obvious 'short'comings, we will prevent many overreactions that lead to crime and worse. Randy Newman was wrong- short people can be just as beneficial to society, just as worthy as tall people.
Re: (Score:2)
The significant thing to note here is that height is important. It wouldn't be studied otherwise.
Seriously? You didn't find it interested that 700 genes go into a single trait? Because that's fairly significant, IMO, and certainly more novel.
You may be a great scientist or programmer or advertising copywriter, but unless you are tall you won't get credit for your work.
Tesla was 6'2'', Edison was 5'10''. Einstein 5'9'', Stephen Hawking (something like) 5'7'', Godel 5'6''........If you're having problems with someone stealing your work, the problem isn't your height; the problem is you let people take advantage of you. Stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla was 6'2'', Edison was 5'10''. Einstein 5'9'', Stephen Hawking (something like) 5'7'', Godel 5'6''........If you're having problems with someone stealing your work, the problem isn't your height; the problem is you let people take advantage of you. Stop it.
The world has changed. Remember when Einstein was important because he was the smartest guy around? Now Einstein is a sarcastic insult.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
lol if the world has changed, it has been to make size less important
I really look up to you for your insight.
Re: (Score:2)
I really look up to you for your insight.
You know, that's what I admire about you.
Re: (Score:1)
US - Centric point of view (Score:1)
Re:size matters (Score:5, Informative)
Napoleon was actually of average height for his time. I agree with the rest of what you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 700? (Score:2)
A human standing upright is made up of a lot of parts stacked upon each other.
If you increase the size of any of the parts, the human's overall height increases.
For each part, there should be at least some individual genes.
From this thought, 700 seems like a pretty low number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Remember also that there are fewer than 100,000 genes in the human genome.
I thought it was closer to 20k?
We need a biologist.