Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18454194›Full record

ReviewPLoS genetics2008

Data and theory point to mainly additive genetic variance for complex traits.

William G Hill, Michael E Goddard, Peter M Visscher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS genetics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 522 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
522citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

522 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Unveiling the interactions between design optimization, modeling strategies, and spatial analysis in genomic selection.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

462 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

William G HillInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. w.g.hill@ed.ac.uk
Michael E Goddard
Peter M Visscher

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relative proportion of additive and non-additive variation for complex traits is important in evolutionary biology, medicine, and agriculture. We address a long-standing controversy and paradox about the contribution of non-additive genetic variation, namely that knowledge about biological pathways and gene networks imply that epistasis is important. Yet empirical data across a range of traits and species imply that most genetic variance is additive. We evaluate the evidence from empirical studies of genetic variance components and find that additive variance typically accounts for over half, and often close to 100%, of the total genetic variance. We present new theoretical results, based upon the distribution of allele frequencies under neutral and other population genetic models, that show why this is the case even if there are non-additive effects at the level of gene action. We conclude that interactions at the level of genes are not likely to generate much interaction at the level of variance.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationModels, GeneticAllelesAnimalsAnimals, DomesticAnimals, LaboratoryEpistasis, GeneticGene FrequencyGenes, DominantGenetics, PopulationHumansPhenotypeQuantitative Trait LociTwin Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID18454194
PMCPMC2265475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.