biorxiv.org
Gene-based analyses found 536 genes significantly associated with general cognitive function; many were highly expressed in the brain, and associated with neurogenesis and dendrite gene sets. Genetic association results predicted up to 4% of general cognitive function variance in independent samples. There was significant genetic overlap between general cognitive function and information processing speed, as well as many health variables including longevity.
Other urls found in this thread:
statnews.com
biorxiv.org
twitter.com
>inb4 "USE CRISPR TO BOOST EXPRESSION OF THOSE GENES 4 SUPERBABIES!!!!1"
Genetics is the world's most precarious balancing act where side effects have side effects have side effects etc.
found the person with no understanding of probability
>muh intuition on genetics based on zero experience or evidence and entirely bias says this is bad
>im going to post this shit opinion on sci
see
Counter Argument of similar merit: It's good though!
He also has no understanding of the amount of redundant sequences in human DNA.
It makes one ponder...what peculiar PHENOTYPE those genes end up expressing. I truly do wonder...could it be?
I think it's just an inability to be rational on the subject. It requires being ignorant or ignoring the massive chance for genetic disease or bad outcomes from natural reproduction. It also assumes that there is some magic nature to reproduction that makes it non-random. It also applies the biggest strawman to the people who would ever use this information in that they would not be prudent.
>4% of cognitive function variance
wow it's fucking nothing
>exponential growth faster than moore's law in field
>4% is nothing
>last study from this year was only in the 50s
1-2-4-8-16-32-etc
moore's law isn't a law and we have no idea if any similar phenomena will occur here.
and again, 4% is fucking nothing.
Poor brianlet
statnews.com
biorxiv.org
There is very good evidence for exactly what will happen.
Anyone interested?
...
>there are people in this universe that have never actually done crispr in a lab setting and believe that offtarget cutting isn't deleterious
Anons crispr is nowhere near as accurate as MS paint diagrams might lead you to believe. PAM sites alone make it annoying as shit to design primers without overt growth problems, never mind issues in whole body signalling
Thread isn't really about CRISPR. Any technology from crispr to embryo selection can be used. You can increase any of the dimensions at play and get incredible results, aka just selection with more potential embryos, better selection algorithms, potential of editing, etc.
It's silly to imagine the constraints of any one of the pathways will stop anything. There are enough holes in the cup that the water will get through in one of them.
>tfw you'll live to see the day when crispr makes a whole generation of super babies and they all grow up to look at older people with pity because they're all brainlets who don't have the benefit of having ultra brains
>when they adjust the IQ tests for this new generation your IQ well change from 140+ to 70 IQ as you instantly go from above average to legally retarded
Yes, and then the superhumans watch as their children have whale bodies to support massively large brains that eclipse them.
>tfw whale generation makes you 20 IQ
Well, if we're lucky the Overbrains will take pity on their ancestors and make us some sort of immortality zoo/old brainlets home to live in
>whale bodies
WRONG
Brain bulls like Witten have a good physique
>Genetic association results predicted up to 4% of general cognitive function variance in independent samples
so there is probably at least a few thousand genes associated with intelligence?
even Ashkenazim can't compete with this phenotype
I think I saw somewhere predictions of 10k.
No one cares about bioinformatics analysis that are not verified by biological data / genetics experiments. There is a reason this in on arxiv (not peer reviewed)
lol
What type of data and experiments are they doing? Can I get a classification on this
Niggers btfo
I'm so afraid of the results I refuse to even read scientific articles on this subject.
go back to r/singularity, faggot
it's a genome wide association study (GWAS). they examine thousands to tens of thousands of genomes and corresponding phenotype information and determine a probability value for whether any given trait correlates with any given genetic variation.
He wrote in his post.
>"verified by biological data / genetics experiments"
The question was if the data and genetic sequencing are not considered biological data or genetic experiments what category did he put them in.
I was very interested what genetic sequencing data is if it's not biological or genetic in nature. I was wondering if he had some explanation for his retarded post that would maybe make sense.
It's an association study. Most SNPs have no downstream effect. Genetics and biochemistry experiments should be used to show if the SNP has any effect on gene expression level or the protein product. To "verify" you also can get a new cohort with differences in cognition and see if the SNPs still come up. There needs to be a complete story. This isn't 2006 where GWAS is the hot new thing and everyone just believe that an SNP 1million base pairs away from a gene has any effect. Read bioinformatics papers in real journals. The OP is an analysis that took less time than asking permission to use the data, and the results of a GWAS can change dramatically just by altering a couple parameters.
So it's just data dredging.
interesting
btw I meant interesting as in; wow so thats the new libtard denial mechanism. Much more complicated than before it's pretty cute.
What does this have to do with politics? Or whenever you encounter something you don't understand you instinctively call people liberals ?
wut
>536 genes significantly associated
>significantly associated
>how can a statistical result be true
what the FUCK are you talking about
>He thinks GWAS actually identifies genes
>He just believes anything that crosses the arbitrary 5*10-8 line
Jesus christ how are there this many brainlets in the universe. Stop getting your science from the news
>candidate genes
>statistics
The actual study is rock solid and used various cohorts and meta-analysis to test results. Where do you think the 4% prediction ability came from?
>what is correlation vs causation
>ignoring how easy it is to data dredge GWAS
>it's all made up
>it works in practice at predicting results to the degree it should
GWAS has been shown to have poor predictability in most studies over the past 10 years. Your 4% figure is a nice example of this.
Yes, and computers used to be huge and bulky. That's not the point. The point is to look at the improvements vs time and see the trajectory.
wonder when this will hit popsci articles
If GWAS has such low predictability, as you claim, then why has it become the foremost method of find finding SNPs associated with population genetics?
What a sad excuse of a tit
The same. Super humans, x-men, and all that mumbo jumbo.
Hopefully soon, they made a ton of articles on the earlier studies and this one is huge compared.
Yeah but statistically the rest of them should be fine
This is their best chance to achieve actual equality.
>first its 5 genes
>then its 39 genes
>now its 536 genes
>tomorrow its 6000 genes where noone knows what does what and then we just clone some smart dudes
Home gene sequencers confirmed for 2025
Because it's better than everything else we have, especially since we can't do a quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis to pinpoint exactly what genes have the most influence due to our inability to breed humans in the ways we'd need to for precision (for ethical reasons). GWAS is just working backwards in data to find causality instead of isolating the potential causal factors through breeding and experiment, which can be incredibly helpful for eliminating the thousands of genes that are totally unhelpful, but it doesn't easily tell us which are the most crucial genes and, more importantly, how those genes work to create this or that trait.
What does this have to do with blacks?
Fuck off back to /b/
The tech is not even 10 years old, give it time. People are still using WT Cas9 from S. pyogenes in most case, many variants are being discovered or engineered, as well as new editing designs. Off-targets are a problem, but you'd be a fool to think there is no solution.
Isn't that more than one third of our genes?
It's forming a cup and handle, it will shoot back up to at least $10M by 2020.
Gene sequencing will be incredibly important. Especially on planes/airports and high transport areas to find killer flus and other bioattacks.