Nearly 700 Genetic Factors Found To Influence Human Adult Height

damn_registrars writes: A consortium of scientists from many different countries reviewed genome-wide association study data sets of over 250,000 individuals in a search for genetic factors that influence adult height. Looking at Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, the researchers found 697 distinct genetic markers that can explain some 20 percent of the heritability of human adult height. Previous studies had found around 180 such markers, but the larger sample set increased the ability to detect these changes, both within genes and in non-coding regions. Genes found in this set included ones from pathways not previously connected to skeletal growth.

This study is also significant for the sample size, which allows it to address whether the data from such large sets has a tendency to converge or diverge on genetic pathways; this study particularly favors the latter, which is of great utility toward studying other polygenetic conditions in the future. The original paper is likely paywalled, however the abstract is available for free and some of the collaborators behind it have other bits available for free in the meantime.

Comments

Manlets

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking manlets. When will they learn?

hmm

[buddyglass]

As a lay person, that a study involving 250,000 participants could explain only 20% of height heritability seems like a bad sign with respect to the pace at which we're likely unravel our own genetic code.

Re:hmm

[fyngyrz]

I think it seems like a good sign. I took it to imply that there may be more (considerably more) than one way to get a particular result. Blue eyes, strength, intelligence, height, etc.

Just a thought. And I'm fairly cynical, too. :)

Looking forward to the day parents can definitively select for intelligent children.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the human genome has only been available for a decade, give or take, I think they're doing pretty well. The data gets cheaper and cheaper to make. For example, the aforementioned human genome (project) took ~4 * 10^^3 days (ten years) and cost ~3 x 10^^9 (three billion) dollars. Now you can sequence a human genome in 10^^0 to 10^^1 days for 10^^3 worth of chemistry... though admittedly the machine will set you back 10^^6 dollars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9EBhaULToU

*not repnosibele for any errors in scientific notation.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that nutrition accounts for a large fraction of the remaining 80%.

My father is tall, my mother is about average, and her brothers are tall. Somehow I ended up being the shortest male in my family by about 4 inches.

It may be worth noting that I quit growing at age 13, but my father grew 2 inches after age 18. I suspect malnutrition in my case, since I was always underweight as a kid. I finally started eating properly after college, and I gained 25 lbs. I went from a BMI of 18-19 to a BMI of 22-23 (* I've stayed in that new range for the past ~17 years).

Re:hmm

[jimmydevice]

You forgot blond hair and a fanatical devotion to the Fuhrer.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Among our many traits are... I'll come in again.

Re:hmm

[fyngyrz]

You forgot blond hair

No, no. I said "intelligent."

Blonde jokes to follow. I'll be here all night. Try the veal.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, I am NOT looking forward to the day that corporations (through lobbying governments) can step in and change a genome because it would lead to a 'tendency towards violence', or because 'fast metabolisms would ruin the diet industry' etc.

Re:hmm

[peragrin]

True but by studying redheads scientists can unlock how the soul interacts wight he body.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What, because you'd rather have violence?

Re:hmm

[Kielistic]

You certainly would if you are ever in the circumstance of needing it.

Re:hmm

[fyngyrz]

Only if they can get past the dead skin. [rimshot]

STOP THE VIDEO ADS SLASHDOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

STOP THE VIDEO ADS SLASHDOT!

THEY EAT ALL MY (meager) BANDWIDTH AND RELOAD CONSTANTLY!

I CANT LEAVE A SLASHDOT TAB OPEN WITHOUT HEARING RANDOM SOUND 15 MINUTES LATER!

THIS SITE IS BECOMING UNUSABLE.

IVE NEVER NEEDED THE REMOVE ADS FEATURE AND NOW THAT I NEED IT I CANT FIND IT. HAS IT BEEN REMOVED?

IVE NEVER USED ADBLOCK IN MY LIFE AND IM GOING TO HAVE TO DOWNLOAD IT FOR SLASHDOT! NEWS FOR NERDS INDEED. MORE LIKELY ILL JUST STICK TO REDDIT, I SEE THE SAME STORIES ON THERE DAYS EARLIER.

sTop it sTop IT stOP IT stOP it StOp iT STOp It stoP IT sTop iT SToP it sTOP it stOp iT stop iT stop IT Stop iT stOp IT StOP it stOp iT sToP IT sToP It StOp iT StOP It sToP iT StoP it STOP it sTop iT STOp It sToP IT stoP It STOP it STop It stoP IT sToP It stoP It STOp It StoP IT sTop It StOp IT stOp It Stop IT SToP It STOp IT stOp IT STop iT SToP It SToP iT SToP IT SToP IT sToP IT stoP it sTOp IT STOP IT StOP IT Stop IT StOp It stOP iT SToP IT stop it StOP it StOp iT StOp iT StOp IT stOP it STOp iT SToP it sTOP it StoP IT sTOp It StOp It sTop it StoP iT StOP iT StoP it SToP it StOP it sTOP iT stop It STOp It sToP it sToP IT sToP IT STOP IT!

random capitalization courtesy of: rANdoM cAPiTalIZATIon GeneraToR

Re:STOP THE VIDEO ADS SLASHDOT!

[davester666]

you are the product, not the customer. if you don't like it, stop prostrating yourself in front of Dice's customers.

In other news

[RuffMasterD]

The other 80% is explained by eating your vegetables. Thanks mom.

Re:In other news

[fyngyrz]

...just don't let her find out you're calling her a vegetable.

Re:In other news

[buddyglass]

As I understand the summary, the researchers explained 20% of the heritability of height. Not height in general. If I haven't misread things, then 80% of the portion of height that is genetically determined is still unexplained. Diet no doubt has a huge effect on height, but (again, if I'm not misreading things) that's not what's being discussed here.

Re:In other news

[davester666]

and boatloads of caffeine. for that extra little bit of height that you can lord over your siblings.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually the proportion of variance in the phenotype.

Re:In other news

[Dcnjoe60]

The other 80% is explained by eating your vegetables. Thanks mom.

Probably more likely that it would be eating high protein sources.

Re:In other news

[Dcnjoe60]

and boatloads of caffeine. for that extra little bit of height that you can lord over your siblings.

Actually, it's been shown that caffeine (and nicotine) stunts growth.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting issues like being born premature

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

and boatloads of caffeine. for that extra little bit of height that you can lord over your siblings.

Actually, it's been shown that caffeine (and nicotine) stunts growth.

I try to eat a strict diet of coffee, soda, beer, and foods high in saturated fat, and smoke at least one cigar a day. I only made it to 6'8". What do you mean by "stunts?"

The tranny dilema

[Anonymous Coward]

I wished I was shorter. Nobody like a tall tranny and no way am taking off ma heels!

Good news.

[kamapuaa]

Hopefully in the future mankind can weed "manlets" from the gene pool. Even women are often six feet tall nowadays, if you're a man under six feet tall you're pathetic.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am about 6' even and find I intimidate most men that I hook up with. I have an above average dong (length-wise, not girth-wise) and I am extremely talented at both athletics and academics. It's fucking simple.

Re:Good news.

[davester666]

oxymoron: "a man under six feet tall"

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Six feet? Let's get serious here. Seven should be the absolute minimum acceptable.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully in the future mankind can weed "manlets" from the gene pool.

It would be interesting to genetically engineer someone to have all 697 of the variants that correlate with increased height.

Even women are often six feet tall nowadays, if you're a man under six feet tall you're pathetic.

Back when I was doing the online dating thing, I was surprised how many women stated right up front in their profile that they would only date men who were a least a couple inches taller than they were. And the most common reason was that they wanted to be able to wear high heals and look good together on the dance floor.

But short men with enough money to travel the world need not despair. Most of the women in Asia are well under six feet tall.

Re:Good news.

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Where are all these tall women? 6ft is about 1.83m! As a >6ft Man, almost all the women (>95%) I meet are under 6ft, the majority are around 5ft, and quite a lot are smaller. So unless you spend all your time hanging around womens basketball teams, I call bs quite frankly.

Yes, humans are getting taller, but I don't think we are at the majority of women being >6ft, or anywhere near it.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are all these tall women? 6ft is about 1.83m! As a >6ft Man, almost all the women (>95%) I meet are under 6ft, the majority are around 5ft, and quite a lot are smaller. So unless you spend all your time hanging around womens basketball teams, I call bs quite frankly.

They are out there. I'm 6'3", my wife is an even 6'. While she did play basketball in high school (I never did) we met after college. I can tell you that from my experience, it is worth the wait to get a woman who is close to your height - a lot of things work better in the bedroom and generally in life as well.

That said, the distribution of height skews a little shorter for women than for men in general; my wife is further above the average height for a woman than I am for a man.

Re:Good news.

[Kielistic]

Just imagine the outrage if it were half as common for men to state they won't date women with bust size less than X as it is for women to state they won't date men shorter than Y.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 5'8", make six figures, quite attractive, no kids or baggage, and absolutely 0 debt, and this is my exact response to women who expect every guy to be 6' or taller. I also have a terrible way of hurting people with words, and they receive the brunt of it.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you have money, their children would be genetic inferior. What's the use?

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

>No issues
>Attack/"hurt" women who say they'd rather not date you.

Wow, sounds like they're really missing out on a winner.

Invader Zim

[Required Snark]

Irken Almighty Tallest

The Irken Empire has a hierarchical class structure in which shorter individuals are both figuratively and literally looked down upon. The tallest Irken born in a specific generation takes command of the entirety of the Empire.

I look forward to the day when humankind are ruled by our own Almighty Tallest.

Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[chesapeake]

To be brutally honest, it's not surprising that yet another genome-wide association study has failed to explain even half of the heritability of a trait / disease / condition.

There's plenty of literature out there arguing whether these studies are a waste of money or not:

* http://blog.goldenhelix.com/?p...
* http://scienceblogs.com/geneti...
* http://gettinggeneticsdone.blo...

I would have been surprised if this study did find the majority of inherited variability in height.

Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[reve_etrange]

At least one result of the study is obvious from first principles - the large number of genes involved in determining height. (Because height varies continuously).

Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[Required Snark]

Nice to know your professional opinion about how useless this study is.

Here's the list of authors:

Andrew R Wood, Tonu Esko, Jian Yang, Sailaja Vedantam, Tune H Pers, Stefan Gustafsson, Audrey Y Chu, Karol Estrada, Jian'an Luan, Zoltán Kutalik, Najaf Amin, Martin L Buchkovich, Damien C Croteau-Chonka, Felix R Day, Yanan Duan, Tove Fall, Rudolf Fehrmann, Teresa Ferreira, Anne U Jackson, Juha Karjalainen, Ken Sin Lo, Adam E Locke, Reedik Mägi, Evelin Mihailov, Eleonora Porcu, Joshua C Randall, André Scherag, Anna A E Vinkhuyzen, Harm-Jan Westra, Thomas W Winkler, Tsegaselassie Workalemahu, Jing Hua Zhao, Devin Absher, Eva Albrecht, Denise Anderson, Jeffrey Baron, Marian Beekman, Ayse Demirkan, Georg B Ehret, Bjarke Feenstra, Mary F Feitosa, Krista Fischer, Ross M Fraser, Anuj Goel, Jian Gong, Anne E Justice, Stavroula Kanoni, Marcus E Kleber, Kati Kristiansson, Unhee Lim, Vaneet Lotay, Julian C Lui, Massimo Mangino, Irene Mateo Leach, Carolina Medina-Gomez, Michael A Nalls, Dale R Nyholt, Cameron D Palmer, Dorota Pasko, Sonali Pechlivanis, Inga Prokopenko, Janina S Ried, Stephan Ripke, Dmitry Shungin, Alena Stancáková, Rona J Strawbridge, Yun Ju Sung, Toshiko Tanaka, Alexander Teumer, Stella Trompet, Sander W van der Laan, Jessica van Setten, Jana V Van Vliet-Ostaptchouk, Zhaoming Wang, Loïc Yengo, Weihua Zhang, Uzma Afzal, Johan Ärnlöv, Gillian M Arscott, Stefania Bandinelli, Amy Barrett, Claire Bellis, Amanda J Bennett, Christian Berne, Matthias Blüher, Jennifer L Bolton, Yvonne Böttcher, Heather A Boyd, Marcel Bruinenberg, Brendan M Buckley, Steven Buyske, Ida H Caspersen, Peter S Chines, Robert Clarke, Simone Claudi-Boehm, Matthew Cooper, E Warwick Daw, Pim A De Jong, Joris Deelen, Graciela Delgado, Josh C Denny, Rosalie Dhonukshe-Rutten, Maria Dimitriou, Alex S F Doney, Marcus Dörr, Niina Eklund, Elodie Eury, Lasse Folkersen, Melissa E Garcia, Frank Geller, Vilmantas Giedraitis, Alan S Go, Harald Grallert, Tanja B Grammer, Jürgen Gräßler, Henrik Grönberg, Lisette C P G M de Groot, Christopher J Groves, Jeffrey Haessler, Per Hall, Toomas Haller, Goran Hallmans, Anke Hannemann, Catharina A Hartman, Maija Hassinen, Caroline Hayward, Nancy L Heard-Costa, Quinta Helmer, Gibran Hemani, Anjali K Henders, Hans L Hillege, Mark A Hlatky, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Per Hoffmann, Oddgeir Holmen, Jeanine J Houwing-Duistermaat, Thomas Illig, Aaron Isaacs, Alan L James, Janina Jeff, Berit Johansen, Åsa Johansson, Jennifer Jolley, Thorhildur Juliusdottir, Juhani Junttila, Abel N Kho, Leena Kinnunen, Norman Klopp, Thomas Kocher, Wolfgang Kratzer, Peter Lichtner, Lars Lind, Jaana Lindström, Stéphane Lobbens, Mattias Lorentzon, Yingchang Lu, Valeriya Lyssenko, Patrik K E Magnusson, Anubha Mahajan, Marc Maillard, Wendy L McArdle, Colin A McKenzie, Stela McLachlan, Paul J McLaren, Cristina Menni, Sigrun Merger, Lili Milani, Alireza Moayyeri, Keri L Monda, Mario A Morken, Gabriele Müller, Martina Müller-Nurasyid, Arthur W Musk, Narisu Narisu, Matthias Nauck, Ilja M Nolte, Markus M Nöthen, Laticia Oozageer, Stefan Pilz, Nigel W Rayner, Frida Renstrom, Neil R Robertson, Lynda M Rose, Ronan Roussel, Serena Sanna, Hubert Scharnagl, Salome Scholtens, Fredrick R Schumacher, Heribert

Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[chesapeake]

Nice to know your professional opinion about how useless this study is.

Re-read my comment: I didn't say it was a useless study, just the the approach (GWAS) has not surprisingly failed to identify the majority of the inherited variability in height.

That these studies regularly fail to do this is hardly a secret or controversial, and is well known in the field: it simply just isn't news.

Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[cryptolemur]

Talk about name dropping...:-)

I hope you're not thinking all these authors contributed equally. They did not. I'd venture a (well educated) guess that most of them "merely" had part of the data, and provided that in exhange for a name in publication. Most probably made their undergrads to do the analysis, so they could only share the results for meta analysis, instead of the raw data. So the the undergrads got their names in, too.

Furthermore, all the authors are using the same method (GWAS) so it's only relevant to question that single method, not the smartness off all the authors put together. And it's apparent that even you don't think much of the method, since you require those that challenge it, to come up with the proof (actual genetic/biological/chemical mechanism) that the method provided a correct model of reality. And within a generous week, which, of course, is much less time that it took to churn this statistical model out of the data.

That doens't sound fair, me thinks. It'll take years of wet lab to find out if this model has any relevance to how the world ticks. Computers and undergrads are cheap, labs and professionsal are expensive, so we get a lot of statistical biology nowadays. It's not bad science per se, but it's a very limited approach, because it's (totally) data driven.

Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you say that the research was a waste because it failed to find the conclusions? Then you say that this wasn't surprising (in hindsight)? You must have had a tough time experimenting as a child. To a layperson (in biology), this study seems apt:
PersonA: "What determines height?"
PersonB: "genetic factors"
PersonC: "environmental factors"
PersonsABC: "we have a list of all of the genetic factors, let's throw it in the sequencing/statistical blender and see how much height is determined by genetics"
ResearchResults: "A huge number of genes relate to height, and only account for 20% of the variance"
Chesapeake: "I could have told you that this study would be a waste."

Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[vossman77]

I counted 445 authors on this publication. The author list is so long that they had to put it in the back pages.

When I was an undergrad, I remember the discovery of the top quark having a billion of authors. I counted and it had only 436 authors, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103%2FPh...

The top quark author list motivated me to get out of high energy physics and into biophysics. I am sure there are papers out there with even longer author lists, but I am always glad to see significant papers with shorter lists as well.

Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen dickhead, He made a pretty basic observation and offered quite a few citations that touch on his concerns. The obvious flaw in this study is the assumption that they could identify the cause of tallness by identifying the effects of everything on anything. It's like saying red blood cells cause you to grow, since their number increase proportionally to your height. Only a dope like you would infer from this study that more than 700 genes are responsible for growth, rather than effected by growth. It's like saying the guy at the bar punched you in the head because he was drunk, rather than realizing that he punched you because you are an asshole.
Gene mapping is going to take a long time, like Leggo's, just because you have all the parts in the box doesn't mean you know how it all goes together. The fact that schmucks like you think this is how it works doesn't make the data less valuable, it just makes your gratuitous comments sound that much more stupid.

Re: Not news: GWAS Often Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Height and intelligence are both known to have significant genetic components, but there are many genes at work in both (though that taysachs mutation seems to be worth 10 IQ points)

and yet

[Anonymous Coward]

these fools keep messing with our food - which hasn't been tested over several years to guarantee it's safety.

Height is complicated

[penguinoid]

I suspect almost every gene will have some sort of effect on height, however small. Development, metabolism, each of the senses and the effect they would have on preferred food, immune system and sickliness, etc.

Re:Height is complicated

[reve_etrange]

Any time a trait has continuous variation, there are going to be a large number of genes involved.

size matters

[swell]

The significant thing to note here is that height is important. It wouldn't be studied otherwise. If you want to succeed in politics or upper management or any endeavor in which you are judged by others, you should be tall. Man or woman (but especially men), it makes no difference- you must be tall.

You may be a great scientist or programmer or advertising copywriter, but unless you are tall you won't get credit for your work. It will go to your boss who is tall and doesn't even understand what you do.

Exceptions include Hitler, Napoleon many comedians and malcontents and criminals... You have some in your family, you've seen them on TV. And why do short people act out? Because they feel the pressure that short people feel. They are never accepted, never quite good enough due to their stature. They overcompensate.

When we learn to judge others by their merit, rather than their sometimes obvious 'short'comings, we will prevent many overreactions that lead to crime and worse. Randy Newman was wrong- short people can be just as beneficial to society, just as worthy as tall people.

Re:size matters

[phantomfive]

The significant thing to note here is that height is important. It wouldn't be studied otherwise.

Seriously? You didn't find it interested that 700 genes go into a single trait? Because that's fairly significant, IMO, and certainly more novel.

You may be a great scientist or programmer or advertising copywriter, but unless you are tall you won't get credit for your work.

Tesla was 6'2'', Edison was 5'10''. Einstein 5'9'', Stephen Hawking (something like) 5'7'', Godel 5'6''........If you're having problems with someone stealing your work, the problem isn't your height; the problem is you let people take advantage of you. Stop it.

Re:size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to urban legend, Napoleon was not short at all (for his time, which is the only reasonable comparative measurement).

Re:size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

You know Randy Newman was not talking about actual short people, right?

Re:size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

> Because they feel the pressure that short people feel. They are never accepted, never quite good enough due to their stature. They overcompensate.

I think you are somewhat missing the point here. Tall people get listened to because they are tall. Their opinions hold sway because they are tall. If you are shorter you have to push harder.

Yes they are compensating for other people's biases. But if you are going to claim *overcompensation* you need to justify this.

Re:size matters

[Extensa30]

er.. yes,sure. Go tell that to Sarkozy (recent president of France), Berlusconi (recent president of Italy) and Aznar (recent president of Spain). All 3 of them were significantly below their countries average. Yup. Your comment is full of insight...

Re:size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Edison actually stole the work of others. Tesla, for example. Might have been kinda easy considering tesla was batshit insane.

Re: size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have missed Mr. Newman's point in the song "Short People". He was pointing out that making judgements about people based on something like height is stupid. He wasn't trying to bash people who are smaller.

Art can be hard to understand. Keep trying you'll get there.

Re:size matters

[drinkypoo]

Tesla was 6'2'', Edison was 5'10''. Einstein 5'9'', Stephen Hawking (something like) 5'7'', Godel 5'6''........If you're having problems with someone stealing your work, the problem isn't your height; the problem is you let people take advantage of you. Stop it.

The world has changed. Remember when Einstein was important because he was the smartest guy around? Now Einstein is a sarcastic insult.

Re:size matters

[AmiMoJo]

Napoleon was actually of average height for his time. I agree with the rest of what you said.

Re:size matters

[DickBreath]

While I agree with what you say about height, I think it overlooks something of greater importance. I am more interested in increasing the size of something else rather than overall height.

Re:size matters

[phantomfive]

lol if the world has changed, it has been to make size less important

Re:size matters

[drinkypoo]

lol if the world has changed, it has been to make size less important

I really look up to you for your insight.

Re:size matters

[phantomfive]

I really look up to you for your insight.

You know, that's what I admire about you.

Only 700?

[zAPPzAPP]

A human standing upright is made up of a lot of parts stacked upon each other.
If you increase the size of any of the parts, the human's overall height increases.
For each part, there should be at least some individual genes.

From this thought, 700 seems like a pretty low number.

Re:Only 700?

[Dr. Spork]

Remember that these were the most obvious 700, the ones that are visible even in a smallish study (250,000 subjects). And these only got us 20% of the way to explaining the genetic components of height. I doubt that the next 700 we find will get us anywhere close to another 20%, because the genes left undiscovered have effects that are so small that they were invisible to this study. Somehow, the remaining 80% of the genetic contribution to height is made up of such genes. That means many thousands of genes are involved. Remember also that there are fewer than 100,000 genes in the human genome.

Re:Only 700?

[narcc]

Remember also that there are fewer than 100,000 genes in the human genome.

I thought it was closer to 20k?

We need a biologist.

Re:Only 700?

[Anonymous Coward]

20,500 types of proteins and loads more awkward to measure non-protein data (the stuff comically known as 'noncoding DNA').

US - Centric point of view

[lamer01]

For some reason, in the US heightism is an issue. So are looks. All you need to do is watch american media (tv/movies/magazines) vs other countries' media. American personalities need to be above average in looks to be successful. Other countries' personalities, not so much,