Partagé en mode public  - 
 
Everything is (half) heritable (and half non-shared environment): "Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies", Polderman et al 2015 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ekxxlubswlry14k/2015-polderman.pdf / http://sci-hub.org/downloads/2575/10.1038@ng.3285.pdf(via http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2015/05/fifty-years-of-twin-studies.html )

Pretty astonishing work in its ambition - summarizing heritability from all twin studies. And the GCTAs say twin studies are right, so it can be interpreted pretty literally as genetics. Excerpts:

"Despite a century of research on complex traits in humans, the relative importance and specific nature of the influences of genes and environment on human traits remain controversial. We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. Estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%. For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation. This study provides the most comprehensive analysis of the causes of individual differences in human traits thus far and will guide future gene-mapping efforts. All the results can be visualized using the MaTCH webtool.

Specifically, the partitioning of observed variability into underlying genetic and environmental sources and the relative importance of additive and non-additive genetic variation are continually debated 1–5 . Recent results from large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) show that many genetic variants contribute to the variation in complex traits and that effect sizes are typically small 6,7 . However, the sum of the variance explained by the detected variants is much smaller than the reported heritability of the trait 4,6–10 . This ‘missing heritability’ has led some investigators to conclude that non-additive variation must be important 4,11 . Although the presence of gene-gene interaction has been demonstrated empirically 5,12–17 , little is known about its relative contribution to observed variation 18 . In this study, our aim is twofold. First, we analyze empirical estimates of the relative contributions of genes and environment for virtually all human traits investigated in the past 50 years. Second, we assess empirical evidence for the presence and relative importance of non-additive genetic influences on all human traits studied. We rely on classical twin studies, as the twin design has been used widely to disentangle the relative contributions of genes and environment, across a variety of human traits.

Half of these were published after 2004, with sample sizes per study in 2012 of around 1,000 twin pairs (Supplementary Table 2). Each study could report on multiple traits measured in one or several samples. These 2,748 studies reported on 17,804 traits. Twin subjects came from 39 different countries, with a large proportion of studies (34%) based on US twin samples. The continents of South America (0.5%), Africa (0.2%) and Asia (5%) were heavily underrepresented (Fig. 1a,b and Supplementary Table 3).

The majority of studies (59%) were based on the adult population (aged 18–64 years), although the sample sizes available for studies of the elderly population (aged 65 years or older) were the largest (Supplementary Table 4). Authorship network analyses showed that 61 communities of authors wrote the 2,748 published studies. The 11 largest authorship communities contained >65 authors and could be mapped back to the main international twin registries, such as the Vietnam Era Twin Registry, the Finnish Twin Cohort and the Swedish Twin Registry (Supplementary Fig. 1).
The investigated traits fell into 28 general trait domains. The distribution of the traits evaluated in twin studies was highly skewed, with 51% of studies focusing on traits classified under the psychiatric, metabolic and cognitive domains, whereas traits classified under the developmental, connective tissue and infection domains together accounted for less than 1% of all investigated traits (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Tables 5–7). The ten most investigated traits were temperament and personality functions, weight maintenance functions, general metabolic functions, depressive episode, higher-level cognitive functions, conduct disorders, mental and behavioral disorders due to use of alcohol, anxiety disorders, height and mental and behavioral disorders due to use of tobacco. Collectively, these traits accounted for 59% of all investigated trait

We did not find evidence of systematic publication bias as a function of sample size (for example, where studies based on relatively small samples were only published when larger effects were reported) (Fig. 1d, Supplementary Figs. 2–6 and Supplementary Tables 8–11). We calculated the weighted averages of correlations for monozygotic (r MZ ) and dizygotic (r DZ ) twins and of the reported estimates of the relative contributions of genetic and environmental influences to the investigated traits using a random-effects meta-analytic model to allow for heterogeneity across different studies (Supplementary Tables 12–15). The meta-analyses of all traits yielded an average r MZ of 0.636 (s.e.m. = 0.002) and an average r DZ of 0.339 (s.e.m. = 0.003). The reported heritability (h 2 ) across all traits was 0.488 (s.e.m. = 0.004), and the reported estimate of shared environmental effects (c 2 ) was 0.174 (s.e.m. = 0.004) (Fig. 2a,b, Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 7).

All weighted averages of h^2 across >500 distinct traits had a mean greater than zero (Supplementary Tables 17–24). The lowest reported heritability for a specific trait was for gene expression, with an estimated h^2 = 0.055 (s.e.m. = 0.026) and an estimated c 2 of 0.736 (s.e.m. = 0.033) (but note that these trait averages are based on reported estimates of variance components derived from only 20 data points reporting on the expression levels of 20 genes; Supplementary Table 21).

For the vast majority of traits (84%), we found that monozygotic twin correlations were larger than dizygotic twin correlations. Using the weighted estimates of r MZ and r DZ across all traits, we showed that, on average, 2r DZ − r MZ = 0.042 (s.e.m. = 0.007) (Table 1), which is very close to a twofold difference in the correlation of monozygotic twins relative to dizygotic twins (Supplementary Figs. 11 and 12). The proportion of single studies in which the pattern of twin correlations was consistent with the null hypothesis that 2r DZ = r MZ was 69%. This observed pattern of twin correlations is consistent with a simple and parsimonious underlying model of the absence of environmental effects shared by twin pairs and the presence of genetic effects that are entirely due to additive genetic variation (Table 2). This remarkable fitting of the data with a simple mode of family resemblance is inconsistent with the hypothesis that a substantial part of variation in human traits is due to shared environmental variation or to substantial non-additive genetic variation.

In only 3 of 28 general trait domains were most studies inconsistent with this model. These domains were activities (35%), reproduction (44%) and dermatological (45%) (Table 2 and Supplementary Table 27). Of the 59 specific traits (ICD-10 or ICF subchapter classifications) for which we had sufficient information to calculate the proportion of studies consistent with 2r DZ = r MZ , 21 traits showed a proportion less than 0.50, whereas for the remaining 38 traits the majority of individual studies were consistent with 2r DZ = r MZ (Supplementary Table 29). Of the top 20 most investigated specific traits, we found that for 12 traits the majority of individual studies were consistent with a model where variance was solely due to additive genetic variance and non-shared environmental variance, whereas the pattern of monozygotic and dizygotic twin correlations was inconsistent with this model for 8 traits, suggesting that, apart from additive genetic influences and non-shared environmental influences, either or both non-additive genetic influences and shared environmental influences are needed to explain the observed pattern of twin correlations (Table 2). These eight traits were conduct disorders, height, higher-level cognitive functions, hyper-kinetic disorders, mental and behavioral disorders due to the use of alcohol, mental and behavioral disorders due to the use of tobacco, other anxiety disorders and weight maintenance functions. For all eight traits, meta-analyses on reported variance components resulted in a weighted estimate of reported shared environmental influences that was statistically different from zero (Supplementary Table 21). Comparison of weighted twin correlations for these specific traits resulted in positive estimates of 2r DZ − r MZ , except for hyperkinetic disorders, where 2r DZ − r MZ was −0.130 (s.e.m. = 0.034) on the basis of 144 individual reports and 207,589 twin pairs, which suggests the influence of non-additive genetic variation for this trait or any other source of variation that leads to a disproportionate similarity among monozygotic twin pairs."
Traduire
Shared with Dropbox
5
1
Photo du profil de Gunnar ZarnckePhoto du profil de gwern branwenPhoto du profil de Sergio Abriola
10 commentaires
 
Is there any finding in psychology as counter-intuitive, surprising, shocking, and hard to believe as the fact that parenting makes almost no difference to most life-outcomes?

Every time I read an article where the idea that parenting is profoundly causally effective is simply taken for granted (like http://nypost.com/2015/05/28/i-love-my-wife-bonus-deal-with-it/ ), I nod along agreeing, until suddenly I wake up and remember that all the stuff like summer camps and reading to kids and home dinners, just doesn't make a long-term difference. They're fun and worthdoing if possible, but not important.
Traduire
 
I'm not sure you are reading this correctly.

Agreed, for most traits the stated main result holds, esp. if you look at the traits with the highest r and h^2 values. 

But

> In only 3 of 28 general trait domains were most studies inconsistent with this model [of the absence of environmental effects shared by twin pairs and the presence of genetic effects that are entirely
due to additive genetic variation]. These domains were activities (35%), reproduction (44%) and dermatological (45%)

And the summary also notes

> If the pattern of twin correlations is consistent with a substantial contribution from shared environmental factors, as we find for conduct disorders, religion and spirituality, and education, then gene-mapping studies may yield disappointing results. ...

And also what about the given c^2 values which presumably are the raw environmental correlation (not derived from 2r_MZ - r_DZ)? These are in a range that nobody would call 'zero'. Actually

> We found the largest influence of c^2 for traits in the cell domain (c^2 = 0.674, s.e.m. = 0.048), followed by traits in the infection (c^2 = 0.351, s.e.m. = 0.153), hematological (c^2 = 0.324, s.e.m. = 0.090), endocrine (c^2 = 0.322, s.e.m. = 0.050), reproduction (c^2 = 0.320, s.e.m. = 0.061), social values (c^2 = 0.271, s.e.m. = 0.032), environment (c^2 = 0.269, s.e.m. = 0.020) and skeletal (c^2 = 0.265,
s.e.m. = 0.019) domains.

Many of these under the influence of parents.
Traduire
 
>  In only 3 of 28 general trait domains were most studies inconsistent with this model

Gunnar, I'm totally happy with asserting that in 'only' 25 of 28 domains (89%) are genetic effects overwhelming, and that in the remaining tenth, the genetic effects are merely important; everything is still heritable. You omit some of the strongest language; if they're meaning it to be literal, they're saying that the nonlinear genetic effects and shared-environments for over half of the most important traits are still consistent with estimates of zero ("Of the top 20 most investigated specific traits, we found that for 12 traits the majority of individual studies were consistent with a model where variance was solely due to additive genetic variance and non-shared environmental variance"), which is beyond what I had expected.

> conduct disorders, religion and spirituality, and education,

A few exceptions out of hundreds of traits? Again, I'm fine with that. (That said: no one's surprised that education has a lot of shared-environment since that's connected to money and cultural attitudes (although we should remember that education is not important in itself; it's mostly just signaling); and I'm not sure their summary of 'religion and spirituality' is right, since my recollection was that while details of religion were, again unsurprisingly, shared-environment - Roman Catholics raise Roman Catholics, etc - religiosity and religious intuitions were much less so.)

> And also what about the given c^2 values which presumably are the raw environmental correlation (not derived from 2r_MZ - r_DZ)?

Why do you care about raw values?
Traduire
 
> I'm totally happy with asserting that in 'only' 25 of 28 domains (89%) are genetic effects overwhelming.

You are misreading that. In 3 domains most studies were inconsistent with the hypothesis. Remember that the hypothesis held only for 69% of the studies. And then many of the >2000 traits were physical. One can't derive anything for specific traits from that. And to me it looks like there are traits that can be affected by parents - like education as you agreed. 

I personally don't care much about the personality of my children - but more about their procedural ability to deal with it. I think most things related to knowledge can be affected by parents. Sure, many of these come naturally to parents, just because they have the same (inheriting) traits. But that doesn't mean that they can lean back and let nature do its way. 

> Why do you care about raw values?

Because the given approach may be flawed. See e.g. http://www.cureffi.org/2013/02/04/how-to-calculate-heritability/

I admit that I do not understand how the derived values can be so at odds with the raw c values.
Traduire
 
> In 3 domains most studies were inconsistent with the hypothesis.

I think they're saying something different than vote-counting; they are supposed to be pooling the studies, and it sounds like they are reporting something equivalent to confidence intervals, since when they move on to the 59 specific traits, they  say concretely "whereas for the remaining 38 traits the majority of individual studies were consistent with 2r DZ = r MZ" ('consistent' usually means some sort of hypothesis test). It points to the supplementary info tables for more details but I don't have those at the moment (perhaps I should just jailbreak that too and host both on gwern.net to make discussion easier). At the end, the authors do say

> Proportion of studies consistent with specific hypotheses. We estimated the proportion of studies that were consistent with H_0 : 2 × (r_MZ − r_DZ ) = 0(π_0(h)) and the proportion of observations consistent with H_0: 2 × r_DZ − r_MZ = 0(π0(c)), using the Jiang and Doerge method^28 , as well as the q-value method^29
>
> 28.    Jiang, H. & Doerge, R.W. "Estimating the proportion of true null hypotheses for multiple comparisons". Cancer Inform. 6, 25–32 (2008).
> 29.    Storey, J.D. & Tibshirani, R. "Statistical significance for genomewide studies". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9440–9445 (2003).

I don't follow this exactly but it does sound like they are doing something like what I thought they were doing.

> Remember that the hypothesis held only for 69% of the studies.

So? The # of studies per trait is not going to be equal for all traits; apparently studies tend to focus on some traits rather than others. This doesn't undermine the generalization of high heritabilities being the default.

> And then many of the >2000 traits were physical. One can't derive anything for specific traits from that.

Of course you can. Physical traits are traits. (Even for cognition, since thinking is what the brain does.) The by domain count makes an excellent default for informal reasoning about random traits, and formally, you can model them all with a hierarchical or multilevel model where they all get pulled towards the grand mean of high heritability.

> but more about their procedural ability to deal with it.

What makes you think that is trainable, much less by parents? (Completely independent from behavioral genetics, most of the causal estimates of education's effect are very low, which is why people are moving away from the human capital theory to signaling and credentials.)

> I admit that I do not understand how the derived values can be so at odds with the raw c values.

Not sure either, but it's worth noting that traits often are correlated. Children of smart parents will do better than one would expect solely on the basis of IQ because that will correlate with lower propensity to violence, better personalities etc, and vice versa for children of dumb parents.
Traduire
 
From the supplement:

"While the meta-analytic estimates of heritability and common environmental variance across all traits indicate that resemblance between twin pairs is largely due to genetic factors and follows an additive model of inheritance, it does not imply that all traits follow a simple additive model. To investigate the overall distribution of studies that follow an additive model, we tested each study for the hypotheses that: 1) the difference between the MZ and DZ correlations is zero (i.e. 2 × (r_MZ - r_DZ ) = 0); 2) twice the DZ correlation minus the MZ correlation is zero (i.e. 2 × r_DZ - r_MZ = 0). Testing the first hypothesis results in an estimate of π 0 (h), which is the proportion of observations consistent with H 0 : 2 × (r_MZ - r_DZ ) = 0. Testing the second hypothesis results in π 0 (c), which is the proportion of observations consistent with H 0 : 2 × r_DZ - r_MZ = 0.

The quantile-quantile (QQ) plots showed that both tests revealed significant deviation from the expected null distribution (Supplementary Figure 12a). The figure on the left hand side of the panel showed that for most studies, the null hypothesis that the trait is not heritable (i.e. that 2 × (r_MZ - r_DZ ) = 0), was rejected. On the other hand, the QQ plot for the test whether 2 × r_DZ - r_MZ = 0 (no common environmental variance or no non-additive genetic influences, π 0 (c)) showed a deviation from the expected null distribution only for the tail of the distribution. Notably, two studies on specific religiosity traits showed an extreme deviation from the null hypothesis, as they reported a strong influence of common environment and zero heritability. We also show that there was no evidence for a correlation between sample size and the estimates of 2 × r_DZ - r_MZ and 2 × (r_MZ - r_DZ ) (Supplementary Figure 12b).

We then estimated the proportion of studies that are consistent with 2 × (r_MZ - r_DZ ) = 0 using the Jiang and Doerge method 28 . We found that the overall π 0 (h) is 0.16. This showed that 84% of studies are consistent with a significant difference between MZ and DZ correlations. To estimate the proportion of studies consistent with an additive model, we calculated the proportion of studies that is consistent with the null hypothesis that 2 × r_DZ - r_MZ = 0, using the same method. We found that 69% of studies are consistent with the hypothesis that the MZ twin correlation is twice the DZ twin correlation, suggesting that twin resemblance is due to additive genetic factors. A slightly larger estimate (80%) was obtained when the proportion was estimated using a q-value method 29 ."
Traduire
 
Thank you for quoting the supplement. Where did you get it from?

> Children of smart parents will do better than one would expect solely on the basis of IQ because that will correlate with lower propensity to violence, better personalities etc, and vice versa for children of dumb parents.

Yes, I know that part. My point wasn't about violence or personality. But IQ doesn't equal knowledge. If there is no opportunity to gather it all IQ will not help. I still think that stopping teaching children is bad advice (for smart as well as dump parents).
Traduire
 
> Thank you for quoting the supplement. Where did you get it from?

The supplement turns out to not be paywalled, so you can download it from Nature. (Why the paper would be paywalled and all the supplemental material not, I do not know.) I have also put up copies of the paper and supplements to make things easier:

- http://www.gwern.net/docs/2015-polderman.pdf
- http://www.gwern.net/docs/2015-polderman-supplement-1.pdf
- http://www.gwern.net/docs/2015-polderman-supplement-2.xlsx

>  If there is no opportunity to gather it all IQ will not help.

But we're well beyond 'no opportunity'. Anyone who wants to learn can learn. You can scavenge an old computer off the street and fill it with PDFs off Libgen or Google and learn a ton of topics. If you don't have Internet, you can find a flash pen drive laying around, given away as advertising or something, and take it to the local library and download to the drive. And so on. This is not the 1500s where books are desperately scarce and someone not at a university has no hope of an education and cannot hope to own more than one or two books without being a noble (to exaggerate only a bit).

Universities still have enormous libraries, but there's also an enormous library everywhere else too. This reduced variation in the shared environment is no longer a major driver of variation in knowledge, since now everywhere is more or less Internet-enabled (think of all the public WiFi, or how little a cheap Android phone is compared to per capita income). So what governs remaining variation? Why do some teens learn tons online by themselves and some don't? Well...

> I still think that stopping teaching children is bad advice

Of course you still need to teach them, because without credentials, they'll lose the signaling arms race.
Traduire
 
> But we're well beyond 'no opportunity'. ...
Agreed. The effect of the shared environment today is smaller than 100 or more years back. And our instincts to teach and help our children developed when...

But... I'm the guy who wrote
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/iha/raising_numerate_children/
and I think the earlier you start the earlier you see results. The head start may be smaller today. But don't tell me that the brain intentionally forgets actually helpful knowledge. Why would supplying true and useful facts about the world early be not a good idea for parents?
Traduire
 
> But don't tell me that the brain intentionally forgets actually helpful knowledge.

Sure it does. 'helpful' is not a neurally meaningful property. What there is, is stuff like emotion-ladened, or repeated multiple times over long intervals (see the spacing effect); everything else is forgotten as soon as possible. The brain doesn't want to learn or generalize anything, since learning and memory are expensive. Hence, forgetting, near-transfer rather than far, neural pruning, and sleep.
Traduire
Ajoutez un commentaire...