Advertisement

Limits to Prediction of Phenotypes from Knowledge of Genotypes

  • Andrew G. Clark
Part of the Evolutionary Biology book series (EBIO, volume 32)

Abstract

The fact that natural selection acts on phenotypes but the transmission of traits to the next generation is indirectly accomplished through genes gives rise to a challenging set of problems in evolutionary Biology. In order to understand adaptive evolution, it appears to be essential to first understand how genotypes give rise to observed phenotypes, or more precisely, how variation in phenotypes is mediated by underlying variation in genotypes. As the tools of molecular genetics give an increasingly detailed view of the underlying genetic variation, one would hope that this problem would be solved by the sheer volume of genetic data. Human molecular genetics has produced many significant successes recently, particularly in identifying genes that cause Mendelian disorders. In stark contrast, chronic diseases that exhibit familial clustering but do not segregate like a Mendelian gene have been remarkably difficult to analyze genetically. The focus of this chapter is on the question, “What are the barriers to our understanding of the genetic basis for familiar clustering of chronic diseases?” We will focus on medical genetics rather than the more general problem of genotype-phenotype associations in evolutionary Biology, because knowledge of phenotypic variation is so extensive for humans and the quantity of data on genetic variation is soon going to eclipse that of all other species, if it has not already.

Keywords

Quantitative Trait Locus Epistatic Interaction ApoE Genotype Quantitative Trait Locus Study Allelic Substitution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti, A., 1990, Categorical Data Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Beavis, W. D., 1994, The power and deceit of QTL experiments: Lessons from comparative QTL studies, in: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Corn and Sorghum Industry Research Conference, pp. 250–266, American Seed Trade Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., and Holland, P. W., 1975, Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Blyth, C. R., 1971, On Simpson’s paradox and the sure-thing principle, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 67:364–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., and Piazza, A., 1994, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. Chee, M., Yang, R., Hubbell, E., Berno, A., Huang, X. C., Stern, D., Winkler, J., Lockhart, D. J., Morris, M. S., and Fodor, S. P., 1996, Accessing genetic information with high-density DNA arrays, Science 274:610–614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheverud J. M., and Routman, E. J., 1995, Epistasis and its contribution to genetic variance components, Genetics 139:1455–1461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchill, G. A., and Doerge, R. W., 1994, Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping, Genetics 138:963–971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A. G., 1987, A test of multilocus interaction in Drosophila melanogaster, Am. Nat. 130:283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, A. G., and Wang, L., 1997, Epistasis in measured genotypes: Drosophila P-element insertions, Genetics 147:157–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cockerham, C. C., 1954, An extension of the concept of partitioning hereditary variance for analysis of covariances among relatives when epistasis is present, Genetics 39:859–882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Damerval, C., Maurice, A., Josse, J. M., and de Vienne, D., 1994, Quantitative trait loci underlying gene product variation: A novel perspective for analyzing regulation of genome expression, Genetics 137:289–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Doebley, J., and Stec, A., 1991, Genetic analysis of the morphological differences between maize and teosinte, Genetics 129:285–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Doebley, J., Stec, A., and Gustus, C., 1995, Teosinte branched 1 and the origin of maize: Evidence for epistasis and the evolution of dominance, Genetics 141:333–346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Doerge, R. W., and Churchill, G. A., 1996, Permutation tests for multiple loci affecting a quantitative character, Genetics 142:285–294.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, M. D., Stuber, C. W., and Wendel, J. F., 1987, Molecular-marker facilitated investigations of quantitative trait loci in maize. I. Numbers, genomic distribution and types of gene action, Genetics 116:113–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson, G., 1996, Epistasis and pleiotropy as natural properties of transcriptional regulation, Theor. Pop. Biol. 49:58–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haviland M. B., Lussier-Cacan, S., Davignon, J., and Sing, C. F., 1995, Impact of apolipoprotein E genotype variation on means, variances, and correlations of plasma lipid, lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein traits in octogenarians, Am. J. Med. Genet. 58:315–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaprio, J., Farrell, R. E., Kottke, B. A., Kamboh, M. I., and Sing, C. E, 1991, Effects of polymorphisms in apolipoproteins E, A-IV, and H on quantitative traits related to risk for cardiovascular disease, Arterioscler. Thromb. 11:1330–1348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kauffman, S. A., 1993, Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  21. Levins, R., and Lewontin, R., 1985, The Dialectical Biologist, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  22. Long, A. D., Mullaney, S. L., Reid, L. A., Fry, J. D., Langley, C. H., and Mackay, T. F. C., 1995, High resolution mapping of genetic factors affecting abdominal bristle number in D. melanogaster, Genetics 139:1273–1291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lusis, A. J., 1988, Genetic factors affecting blood lipoproteins: The candidate gene approach, J. Lipid Res. 29:397–429.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Malone, K. E., Daling, J. R., Thompson, J. D., O’Brien, C. A., Francisco, L. V., and Ostrander, E. A., 1998, BRCA1 mutations and breast cancer in the general population: Analyses in women before age 35 years and in women before age 45 years with first-degree family history, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 279:922–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H., 1983, Applied Linear Regression Models, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Home wood, Illinois.Google Scholar
  26. Newman, B., Mu, H., Butler, L. M., Millikan, R. C., Moorman, P. C., and King, M. C., 1998, Frequency of breast cancer attributable to BRCA1 in a population-based series of American women, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 279:915–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reilly, S. L., Farrell, R. E., Kottke, B. A., Kamboh, M. I., and Sing, G F., 1991, The gender-specific apolipoprotein E genotype influence on the distribution of lipids and apolipoproteins in the population of Rochester, MN. I. Pleiotropic effects on means and variances, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 49:1155–1166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schaffer, W. M., 1981, Ecological abstractions: The consequences of reduced dimensionality in ecological models, Ecol. Monog. 51:383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simpson, E. H., 1951,The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 13:238–241.Google Scholar
  30. Sing, C. F., Haviland, M. B., and Reilly, S. L., 1996, Genetic architecture of common multifactorial diseases, in: Variation in the Human Genome (K. M. Weiss, ed.), pp. 211–229, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
  31. Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J., 1995, Biometry, 3rd ed., W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  32. Stam, L. F., and Laurie, C. C., 1996, Molecular dissection of a major gene effect on a quantitative trait: The level of alcohol dehydrogenase expression in Drosophila melanogaster, Genetics 144:1559–1564.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Stuber, C. W., Lincoln, S. E., Wolff, D. W., Helentjaris, T., and Lander, E. S., 1992, Identification of genetic factors contributing to heterosis in a hybrid from two elite maize inbred lines using molecular markers, Genetics 132:823–839.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tanksley, D. S., 1993, Mapping polygenes, Annu. Rev. Genet. 27:205–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whitlock, M. C., Phillips, P. C., Moore, F. B. G., and Tonsor, S. J., 1995, Multiple fitness peaks and epistasis, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:601–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xiao, J., Li, J., Yuan, L., and Tanksley, S. D., 1995, Dominance is the major genetic basis of heterosis in rice as revealed by QTL analysis using molecular markers, Genetics 140:745–754.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zerba, K. E., Ferrell, R. E., and Sing, C. F., 1996, Genotype-environment interaction: Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene effects and age as an index of time and spatial context in the human, Genetics 143:463–478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhivotovsky, L. A., and Gavrilets, S., 1992, Quantitative variability and multilocus polymorphism under epistatic selection, Theor. Pop. Biol. 42:254–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew G. Clark
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, Department of BiologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations