Dutch neuroscientists Marc Molendijk and colleagues took all of the studies that compared a particular variant, BDNF val66met, and the volume of the human hippocampus. It's a long story, but there are various biological reasons that these two things might be correlated.
It turns out that the first published reports found large genetic effects, but that ever since then, the size of the effects has dropped, with the latest studies finding no effects at all -
A cumulative meta-analysis confirms that as more studies on BDNF val66met have appeared, the overall effect estimate has steadily declined -
Finally, the authors found signs of publication bias: there were three small, imprecise studies that reported very large effects of the gene, but no such studies finding no effect (or a reverse effect). You'd expect that small and noisy studies would have a lot of random variation so they wouldn't all be positive even if there was a true effect; that all of the published ones were positive, suggests that null findings are out there, unreported.
Overall, this suggests that val66met probably isn't associated with hippocampus volume after all, and that the early studies showing that it was, were misleading. There's no reason to think that the early studies were wrong as such - they may have accurately reported an effect in the small sample of people they looked at, but it was only a chance finding.
I know a lot of neuroscientists who are now fairly skeptical of this whole genre of candidate gene studies; there was much excitement 5 or 10 years ago, but in retrospect, most of these studies were too small, and the publication process meant that it was the random chance findings that were most likely to get published.
However, we need to avoid any sense of complacency. Until we fix the scientific process, the same thing will happen again.

5 comments:
But the scientific process isn't going to be fixed. There is too much money at stake-- the medical-drug industrial complex wants to rush to market all sorts of genetic tests and "biomarkers" for every disease (or "dis-ease" if you are talking psychiatry)under the sun. The corruption that ruined academic medicine (and turned "academic medicine" into an oxymoron) is ever present (and rewarded).
You are right...science can go very wrong. We learned about genes, which are units of DNA, and genetics in my psychology class and many things can go wrong with them. Diseases come about when DNA or genes mutate or spontaneously change. Also, I'm not surprised that the gene val66met and the hippocampus volume aren't correlated. There are about 25,000 genes in the human genome and any one of those could contribute to the hippocampus volume. Genes and DNA are pretty complicated, and although we know a lot about them, there is probably a lot more that we don't know about.
Interesting but not exactly new. This problem, the Decline Effect, has been known for quite some time:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
Anonymous: I oscillate between optimism and pessimism about whether these problems will be fixed, but most of the time I'm hopeful. The biggest set of conflicts of interest are around clinical trials, and we now have pretty strong regulations there for registration & reporting, much stronger than for other science; Pharma for all their money couldn't prevent that.
The ENIGMA consortium performed a GWAS on hippocampal volumes and failed to find effects of BDNF val(66)met.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v44/n5/full/ng.2237.html
Post a Comment