In:
Twin Research and Human Genetics, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 21, No. 5 ( 2018-10), p. 394-397
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’.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1832-4274
,
1839-2628
Language:
English
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Publication Date:
2018
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2184274-7
SSG:
12