Study Largest genome-wide association study for PTSD identifies genetic risk loci

[bellbird]

Largest genome-wide association study for PTSD identifies genetic risk loci in European and African ancestries and implicates novel biological pathways

 

[blackemerald1]

So this is an attempt to try and apply genetics with the exclusion of environment (as a factor) to the onset of ptsd.

I don't buy it at all.

 

[bellbird]

So this is an attempt to try and apply genetics with the exclusion of environment (as a factor) to the onset of ptsd.

I don't buy it at all.

My understanding of the paper wasn't that they excluded the environment as a factor.

From the abstract:
The risk of PTSD following trauma is heritable, but robust common variants have yet to be identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS).

My understanding of the paper was this:
Person A and Person B are both exposed to Trauma X.

Person A develops PTSD, Person B does not.

Why? Are there any genes involved in this?

Analyse the whole genomes of lots of Person As and Person Bs, to look for "risk loci" (genes, essentially) that appear in all the Person As but not in the Person Bs, and vice versa.

Are these risk genes "heritable"?
i.e. does Person A's child have a higher likelihood of developing PTSD if exposed to the same trauma as Person B's child?

 

[blackemerald1]

Hmm I understand but I don't think trying to identify genes is going to bring about conclusive results for a while. It's all but impossible to factor in variants in environment and we already know that everyone's perception of any given trauma will be slightly different. So it's not really comparing on against another in the purest sense and is then 'near enough - good enough.'?

Also I get a little bit sceptical about these studies because who is going to use the information if it does become an identifiable trait?

Are they going to recommend that people who carry the ptsd gene are not allowed to join various services, insurance, careers. What does it actually do to ease the lot of a sufferer?

They probably will not be looking at gene therapy to help a sufferer.

I like genetic studies that look for ways to help prevent or cure cancer, diabetes - etc...

But... then again if they have the money and time to do this... :)

 

[bellbird]

Hmm I understand but I don't think trying to identify genes is going to bring about conclusive results for a while. It's all but impossible to factor in variants in environment and we already know that everyone's perception of any given trauma will be slightly different. So it's not really comparing on against another in the purest sense and is then 'near enough - good enough.'?

Yeah, I do get your point.
I suppose that's an issue with pretty much any research on living systems- it's never really possible to have a pure comparison. Even with identical twins.

Also I get a little bit sceptical about these studies because who is going to use the information if it does become an identifiable trait?

Are they going to recommend that people who carry the ptsd gene are not allowed to join various services, insurance, careers. What does it actually do to ease the lot of a sufferer?

Yep. I suppose this ties in with the big issue with ethics regarding genetic information, now that whole genome sequencing is becoming affordable enough for the Average Joe to get it done.
Will insurance companies/employers etc. in the future refuse to cover people with risk markers for really any disease/conditions.

I like genetic studies that look for ways to help prevent or cure cancer, diabetes - etc...

For sure.
It's possible this study is partly blue skies research (if people actually have the money to cover that these days).

But looking at genetic research specifically, yes there are research labs working on projects that aim to provide an actual cure for certain diseases, down the chain.
But the all the rest (non-cancer-cure-research), like I dunno people studying the genetics of lichen or fruit flies or fish that live so deep in the ocean that pretty much none of us will ever see them, still have their place. Understanding our world is a good thing (I wanted to say always a good thing, but then y'know... atomic bomb and gunpowder et al.), but for sure something innate in humanity.

But yeah, I do understand your points of view, @blackemerald1 :)

 

[blackemerald1]

What I really hope is that whilst on this journey of discovery they stumble over something simply brilliant that makes it worthwhile. :)

 

[bellbird]

Absolutely! The PTSD equivalent of penicillin discovery :p

 

[IceQueencop]

From the legal/employment perspective. The U.S. has laws in place that prohibit employer use of genetic information. Do other countries have similar protection?

 

[blackemerald1]

I think it depends whether or not you utilise a public or private genetic testing facility. I think there was a murder case in the US a few years back where a private genetic testing company which is rather well known were required under subpoena to search their records for a particular sequence and came up with hit.

It wasn't the murderer's dna but one of his male relatives... so they (the Police) were able to conduct back-ground checks and work out who the patient's relatives were and subsequently identified the murderer himself.

I don't think much is sacred in medical terms when a Warrant is legally issued.

But employment - I don't have a clue. I'd imagine if a person made a false statement regarding medical or health issues and it subsequently came to be known by any means it was untrue - the employer could act accordingly. But screening for genetic traits - hmm not sure many employers would want the expense or the law-suits.

As dna testing gets cheaper and faster it may well become a problem. Or a solution - depending on which side of the fence one sits. :)