Revision as of 18:40, 25 August 2020 edit Me, Myself, and I are Here (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 107,043 edits m →top: adjust bold ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:53, 6 November 2020 edit undo Darouet (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 12,458 edits Unreliable Next edit →
Line 42: == Interpretation == GCTA estimates are often misinterpreted as "the total genetic contribution", and since they are often much less than the twin study estimates, the twin studies are presumed to be biased and the genetic contribution to a particular trait is minor.<ref>[https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability/ "Still Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find the 'Missing Heritability'"], Charney 2013</ref>{{rs?}} This is incorrect, as GCTA estimates are lower bounds. A more correct interpretation would be that: GCTA estimates are the expected amount of variance that could be predicted by an indefinitely large GWAS using a simple additive linear model (without any interactions or higher-order effects) in a particular population at a particular time given the limited selection of SNPs and a trait measured with a particular amount of precision. Hence, there are many ways to exceed GCTA estimates:

Genome-wide complex trait analysis: Difference between revisions