Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T03:30:58.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Epidemiology of Genetic Epidemiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

J.L. Hopper
J.L. Hopper*
Affiliation:
The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
*
The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Medicine Epidemiology Unit, 151 Barry Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Familial aggregation for disease is important; strong familial risk factors must exist even if the increased risk to a relative of an affected individual is modest. It is in practice difficult, however, to conduct studies in genetic epidemiology which conform to strict epidemiological principles. For twin studies there are two major questions: Are twins ‘no different’ from the population on which inference is to be made? Are study twins ‘no different’ to twins in the population? The importance of each question of bias depends on the scientific question, the trait(s) studied, and sampling issues. The strength of the twin design is its ability to refute the null hypothesis that genetic factors do not explain variation in a trait. Following the Popperian paradigm, alternate hypotheses should be considered in depth (both theoretically and empirically), with a design and sample size sufficient to exclude not just naive explanations. More sophisticated statistical techniques are now being applied, so the philosophy, assumptions, and limitations of statistical modelling must be appreciated. The concept of ‘heritability’ has, in the past, been misunderstood and misused. New advances in DNA technology promise to revolutionise epidemiological thinking, and so case-control-pedigree designs may well become standard tools. The strengths and limitations of studies based on related individuals as the sampling unit are discussed.

Keywords

EpidemiologyFamilial aggregationGenetic dominanceGenetic epidemiologyHeritabilityPopperian philosophySamplingShared environmentTwins
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 261 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1992

References

REFERENCES

1. Aalen, OO (1991): Modelling the influence of risk factors on familial aggregation of disease. Biometrics 47:933–945.Google Scholar
2. Australian NHMRC Twin Registry (1991): 1990 Annual Report. Australian NHMRC Twin Registry, Melbourne.Google Scholar
3. Battie, MC, Videman, T, Gill, K, Moneta, GB, Nyman, R, Kaprio, J, Koskenvuo, M (1991): Smoking and lumbar invertebral disc degeneration: an MRI study of identical twins. Spine 16:1015–1021.Google Scholar
4. Bouchard, C, Tremblay, A, Despres, J-P, Nadeau, A, et al. (1990): The response of long-term overfeeding in identical twins. New Engl J Med 322:1477–1482.Google Scholar
5. Bulmer, MG (1980): The Mathematical Theory of Quantitative Genetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
6. Cavalli-Sforza, LL, Feldman, MW (1981): Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
7. Clifford, CA, Hopper, JL, Fulker, D, Murray, RM (1984): A genetic and environmental analysis of a twin family study of alcohol use, anxiety, and depression. Genet Epidemiol 1:63–79.Google Scholar
8. Day, NE, Simons, MJ (1976): Disease susceptibility genes - their identification by multiple case family studies. Tissue Antigens 8:109–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Doherty, JDH, Lancaster, PAL (1986): The secular trend of twinning in Australia, 1853-1982. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 35:61–76.Google Scholar
10. Eaves, LJ, Eysenck, HJ, Martin, NG (1989): Genes, Culture and Personality: An Empirical Approach. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
11. Falconer, DS (1989): Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, (3rd ed.), Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
12. Fisher, RA (1918): The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans Roy Soc Edinb 52:399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Fisher, RA (1951): Limits to intensive production in animals. Brit Agric Bull 4:217–218.Google Scholar
14. Floderus, B, Cederlof, R, Friberg, L (1988): Smoking and mortality: A 21-year follow-up based on the Swedish Twin Registry. Int J Epidemiol 17:332–340.Google Scholar
15. Greenland, S (1987): Evolution of Epidemiologic Ideas: Annotated Readings on Concepts and Methods. Chestnut Hill, Ma., Epidemiology Resources.Google Scholar
16. Gibson, HB, Silverstone, H, Gandevia, B, Hall, GJL (1969): Respiratory disorders in seven-year-old children in Tasmania. Aims, methods and administration of the survey. Med J Aust 2:201–205.Google Scholar
17. Giles, GG, Gibson, HB, Lickiss, N, Shaw, K (1984): Respiratory systems in Tasmanian adolescents: a follow-up of the 1961 birth cohort. Aust NZ J Med 14:631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Hay, DA, Clifford, CA, Derrick, P, Hopper, J, Renard, B, Theobald, TM (1990): Twin children in volunteer registries: biases in parental participation and reporting. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 39:71–84.Google Scholar
19. Hopper, JL, Mathews, JD (1982): Extensions to multivariate normal models for pedigree analysis. Ann Hum Genet 465:373–383.Google Scholar
20. Hopper, JL, Mathews, JD (1983): Extensions to multivariate normal models for pedigree analysis. II. Modeling the effect of shared environment in the analysis of variation in blood lead levels. Am J Epidemiol 117:344–355.Google Scholar
21. Hopper, JL (1988): A review of FISHER. Genet Epidemiol 5:473–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Hopper, JL, Culross, P (1983): Covariation between family members as a function of cohabitational history. Behav Genet 13:459–471.Google Scholar
23. Hopper, JL, Carlin, JB (1992): Familial aggregation of a disease consequent upon correlation between relatives in a risk factor measured on a continuous scale. Am J Epidemiol (in press).Google Scholar
24. Hopper, JL, Macaskill, GT, Powles, JP, Ktenas, D (1992): Pedigree analysis of blood pressure in subjects from rural Greece and relatives who migrated to Melbourne, Australia. Genetic Epidemiology, 1992: 8 (in press).Google ScholarPubMed
25. Hopper, JL, Giles, GG (1992): A study of breast cancer in Victorian families. Cold Spring Harbor Conference on Cancer and Cell Biology (Abstract).Google Scholar
26. Hopper, JL, Seeman, E (1992): Tobacco use and reduced bone density: a co-twin control study. In Christiansen, C, Overgaard, K (eds) Osteoporosis 1990, Vol. 2. Copenhagen: Osteopress ApS, pp 1117–1118.Google Scholar
27. Jenkins, M, Dalton, M, Hopper, JL, Carlin, JB, Flander, LB, Giles, GG (1992): Follow up in 1991-92 of the 1968 Tasmanian Asthma Study. Faculty of Medicine Epidemiology Unit Report, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
28. Kaprio, J, Koskenvuo, M (1990): Cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer and coronary heart disease. A study of smoking-discordant twin pairs. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 39:25–34.Google Scholar
29. Kendall, MG, Stuart, A (1973): The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2 (3rd ed.), Chapter 27. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
30. Khoury, MJ, Beaty, TH, Liang, K-Y (1988): Can familial aggregation of disease be explained by familial aggregation of environmental risk factors? Am J Epidemiol 127:674–683.Google Scholar
31. Khoury, MJ, Beaty, TH, Flanders, WD (1990): Epidemiologic approaches to the use of DNA markers in the search for disease susceptibility genes. Epidemiologic Reviews 12:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Last, JM (1983): A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
33. Morton, NE (1982): Outline of Genetic Epidemiology. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
34. Peto, J (1980): Genetic predisposition to cancer. In Cairns, J, Lyon, JL, Skolnick, M (eds): Banbury Report 4: Cancer incidence in defined populations. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, pp 203–213.Google Scholar
35. Popper, KR (1968): The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (2nd ed.) New York: Harper & Row. Originally published as Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Springer, 1934.Google Scholar
36. Powles, JP, Hopper, JL, Macaskill, GT, Ktenas, D (1992): Blood pressure in subjects from rural Greece, comparing individuals migrating to Melbourne, Australia, with non-migrant relatives. J Hum Hypert (in press).Google Scholar
37. Rose, RJ, Kaaprio, J, Williams, CJ et al (1990): Sibling contact and sibiling similarity: facts, issues, and red herrings. Behav Genet 20:763–778.Google Scholar
38. Rothman, K (1988): Causal Inference. Chestnut Hill, Ma., Epidemiology Resources.Google Scholar
39. Slemenda, CW, Christian, JC, Williams, CJ, et al (1991): Genetic determinants of bone mass in adult women: A reevaluation of the twin model and the potential importance of gene interaction on heritability estimates. Bone Min Res 6:561–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Stunkard, AJ, Harris, JR, Pedersen, NL, McClearn, GE(1990): The body mass index of twins who have been reared apart. New Engl J Med 322:1483–1487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Williams, CJ, Viken, R, Rose, RJ (1992): Likelihood-based analyses of longitudinal twin and family data: experiences with pedigree-based approaches. Behav Genet 22:215–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Wilson, SR (1982): Heritability. J Appl Prob 19A:71–85.Google Scholar