Abstract
Hill (Twin Research and Human Genetics, Vol. 21, 2018, 84-88) presented a critique of our recently published paper in Cell Reports entitled 'Large-Scale Cognitive GWAS Meta-Analysis Reveals Tissue-Specific Neural Expression and Potential Nootropic Drug Targets' (Lam et al., Cell Reports, Vol. 21, 2017, 2597-2613). Specifically, Hill offered several interrelated comments suggesting potential problems with our use of a new analytic method called Multi-Trait Analysis of GWAS (MTAG) (Turley et al., Nature Genetics, Vol. 50, 2018, 229-237). In this brief article, we respond to each of these concerns. Using empirical data, we conclude that our MTAG results do not suffer from 'inflation in the FDR [false discovery rate]', as suggested by Hill (Twin Research and Human Genetics, Vol. 21, 2018, 84-88), and are not 'more relevant to the genetic contributions to education than they are to the genetic contributions to intelligence'.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 394-397 |
Number of pages | 4 |
Journal | Twin Research and Human Genetics |
Volume | 21 |
Issue number | 5 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Oct 1 2018 |
Keywords
- Calcium channel
- Cerebellum
- Gene expression
- General cognitive ability
- Gwas
- Neurodevelopment
- Nootropics
- Potassium channel
- Synapse
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
- Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Genetics(clinical)