The truth about complex traits and GWAS

This 2017 Colorado analysis, “No Evidence That Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Are More Associated With Schizophrenia Than Noncandidate Genes,” found:

“A recent analysis of 25 historical candidate gene polymorphisms for schizophrenia in the largest genome-wide association study [GWAS] conducted to date suggested that these commonly studied variants were no more associated with the disorder than would be expected by chance.

However, the same study identified other variants within those candidate genes that demonstrated genome-wide significant associations with schizophrenia. As such, it is possible that variants within historic schizophrenia candidate genes are associated with schizophrenia at levels above those expected by chance, even if the most-studied specific polymorphisms are not.

As a group, variants in the most-studied candidate genes were no more associated with schizophrenia than were variants in control sets of noncandidate genes. While a small subset of candidate genes did appear to be significantly associated with schizophrenia, these genes were not particularly noteworthy given the large number of more strongly associated noncandidate genes.

The history of schizophrenia research should serve as a cautionary tale to candidate gene investigators examining other phenotypes: our findings indicate that the most investigated candidate gene hypotheses of schizophrenia are not well supported by genome-wide association studies, and it is likely that this will be the case for other complex traits as well.”


One reason I admire scientists is that many of them are genuinely interested in advancing science. They eventually expose the storytelling and directed narratives in reviews such as:

They uncover questionable methods and moneygrubbing to fund research with a goal of confirming sponsors’ biases such as:

They impartially examine evidence supporting agendas and personal aggrandizements in studies such as:

Unbiased facts and analyses are eventually reported by these dedicated scientists. The problem is that their works aren’t on page 1 of journals and search results.

https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(17)31772-9/fulltext “No Evidence That Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Are More Associated With Schizophrenia Than Noncandidate Genes” (not freely available)

Are there epigenetic causes for sexual orientation and gender identity?

This US 2018 review lead author was a gynecologic oncologist in private practice:

“Sexual orientation is biologically conferred in the first trimester of pregnancy. Gender identity is biologically conferred during the middle trimester of pregnancy.

Since the genitals differentiate in the first trimester, and the brain becomes imprinted in the latter half of gestation, it is possible for the fetal brain to be imprinted differently than the genitals. As children mature, this innate imprinting expresses as genital anatomy, gender identity, sexual orientation and other physiologic capabilities and natural preferences along a continuum, between masculine and feminine.

The evidence shows that both orientation and identity are biologic features that co-vary with a very large number of other biologic sexually dimorphic traits.”


1. A fetus’ development is influenced by survival reactions to their environment. Although fetal and placental responses to environmental stressors are relevant to sexual orientation and gender identity, the reviewers didn’t explore the subject.

2. Epigenetic adaptations to the prenatal environment involving microRNA were mentioned in a small subsection. But the reviewers didn’t cite relevant studies involving DNA methylation, chromatin and histone modifications for epigenetic causes of and effects on sexual orientation and gender identity.

3. The reviewers included a half-dozen anecdotal quotations from personal correspondence that promoted their narrative. These impressed as appeals to authority rather than evidence for scientific understanding of the subject.

It was insufficient for the review to note “a continuum between masculine and feminine” without also exploring evidence for an individual’s placement on the continuum. The question of possible epigenetic causes for sexual orientation and gender identity remains.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009082581731510X “Biological origins of sexual orientation and gender identity: Impact on health” (not freely available)

Faith-tainted epigenetics

This 2018 Loma Linda review subject was epigenetic interventions for aging:

“Epigenomic markers of aging, global DNA hypomethylation and promoter-specific hypermethylation may be engendered by iron and HCys [homocysteine] retention.

MiR-29/p53 axis may reverse age-related methylomic shifts, stabilizing both the genome and the epigenome, therefore removing a major risk factor of neurodegeneration. Lowering iron and HCys overload can be accomplished via chelation, blood donation and maintaining an adequate omega-6/omega-3 ratio.”


Sometimes it’s difficult to detect researchers’ biases. If a reader didn’t know about the funding sponsor’s mission:

“Each day we seek to extend the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus Christ”

they may view this paper as unbiased rather than as a directed narrative.

Consider the sponsor’s influence from the perspective of someone seeking treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. If a doctor in this review sponsor’s hospital system recommended chelation treatment, hope would be generated for the patient. Adopting the doctor’s belief about the treatment, though, would be contrary to other evidence per this review:

“In 2008, the NIH chelation trial stopped enrolling patients, approximately two years early.

There is no indication for exposing patients with dementia to the risks of chelation therapy because current chelators cannot help them.”

After reading another review that had this sponsor – The lack of oxygen’s epigenetic effects on a fetus – which also reflected the influence of the sponsor’s biases, and had a directed narrative that ignored evidence contradicting the narrative, and involved storytelling, I’m done curating any paper sponsored by this institution.

http://www.nrronline.org/downloadpdf.asp?issn=1673-5374;year=2018;volume=13;issue=4;spage=635;epage=636;aulast=Sfera;type=2 “Epigenetic interventions for brain rejuvenation: anchoring age-related transposons” (click the pdf button)