There have been many papers looking for dominance and epistasis, but little has been found. EA4 tested across the genome for dominance and found nothing.
See §4.4.3 for my response.
Epistasis generally causes MZ to be more than 2DZ, which is not commonly seen.
See the collapsible box labeled “Box: Twin-study evidence of epistasis in adult personality, mental health, and behavior” in §4.4.2 for many apparent examples of precisely this. Do you disagree with that? Is there more evidence I’m missing?
Remember, I’m claiming that non-additive genetics are important in adult personality, mental health, and behavioral things like divorce, but that they’re NOT very important in height or blood pressure or (I think) IQ or EA.
You make a mistake in your terminology.
This is very possible!! It wouldn’t be the first time. I can still make changes. I found the use of terminology in the literature confusing … and I find your comment confusing too. :(
My background is physics not genetics, and thus I’m using the word “nonlinearity” in the linear algebra sense. I.e., if we take a SNP array that measures N SNPs, we can put the set of all possible genomes (as measured by this array) into an N-dimensional abstract vector space, I think. Then there’s a map from this N-dimensional space to, let’s say, extroversion. Both what you call dominance, and what you call epistasis, would make this map “nonlinear” (in the linear algebra sense). See what I mean?
If it’s true that people in genetics use the term “nonlinearity” to refer specifically to nonlinearity-at-a-single-locus, then I would want to edit my post somehow! (Is it true? I don’t want to just take your word for it.) I don’t want people to be confused. However, nonlinearity-in-the-linear-algebra-sense is a very useful notion in this context. I will feel handicapped if I’m forbidden from referring to that concept. Maybe I’ll put in a footnote or something? Or switch from “nonlinearity” to “non-additivity”? (Does “non-additivity” subsume both dominance and epistasis?)
Update: I replaced the word “epistasis” with “non-additive genetic effects” in a bunch of places throughout the post. Hopefully that makes things clearer??
See §4.4.3 for my response.
See the collapsible box labeled “Box: Twin-study evidence of epistasis in adult personality, mental health, and behavior” in §4.4.2 for many apparent examples of precisely this. Do you disagree with that? Is there more evidence I’m missing?
Remember, I’m claiming that non-additive genetics are important in adult personality, mental health, and behavioral things like divorce, but that they’re NOT very important in height or blood pressure or (I think) IQ or EA.
This is very possible!! It wouldn’t be the first time. I can still make changes. I found the use of terminology in the literature confusing … and I find your comment confusing too. :(
My background is physics not genetics, and thus I’m using the word “nonlinearity” in the linear algebra sense. I.e., if we take a SNP array that measures N SNPs, we can put the set of all possible genomes (as measured by this array) into an N-dimensional abstract vector space, I think. Then there’s a map from this N-dimensional space to, let’s say, extroversion. Both what you call dominance, and what you call epistasis, would make this map “nonlinear” (in the linear algebra sense). See what I mean?
If it’s true that people in genetics use the term “nonlinearity” to refer specifically to nonlinearity-at-a-single-locus, then I would want to edit my post somehow! (Is it true? I don’t want to just take your word for it.) I don’t want people to be confused. However, nonlinearity-in-the-linear-algebra-sense is a very useful notion in this context. I will feel handicapped if I’m forbidden from referring to that concept. Maybe I’ll put in a footnote or something? Or switch from “nonlinearity” to “non-additivity”? (Does “non-additivity” subsume both dominance and epistasis?)
Update: I replaced the word “epistasis” with “non-additive genetic effects” in a bunch of places throughout the post. Hopefully that makes things clearer??