Genes and performances: Why some are more equal than others (Read 1706 times)

From The Science of Sport:

Genes and performances: Why some are more equal than others

On section in particular caught my eye.

"And for this, a paper by Claude Bouchard earlier this year.  In this study, 470 untrained volunteers were put through five months of training, and their fitness levels measured before and after. ... Bouchard performed a genome-wide association study and was able to identify 21 of those previously mentioned SNPs (genetic DNA variations) that accounted for 49% of the difference in the training response [ = percentage improvement in VO2Max]. ... If a person carried 9 or fewer of the identified SNPs, they improved by an average of 9% (about half the average), whereas individuals who had 19 or more of the 21 SNPs improved by 26% (almost double the average)."

Naturally I wondered what I would score here. I was genotyped by 23andme, and I thought maybe some or all of those 21 SNPs were available in my data. So I tracked down the paper, found data for 20 of the 21 SNPs, and... my score is a whopping 11. Huh. So, from this perspective, I guess am not "born to run". Oh well.

For those interested, who have SNP data, this is what you need to know:

"To determine one's vo2max potential increase, the authors offer a scoring rubric using the minor alleles of 21 snp's most associated with vo2max increase. score two for the minor homo-zygote, one for the hetero-zygote and zero for the major (common) homo-zygote. one exception is rs1535628. the major homo-zygote scores two and the minor zero.

using http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/index.html to determine the minor zygotes, the following is the list of the snp's and their minor zygotes:

rs10499043 T
rs1535628 A (AA=0, GG=2)
rs4973706 C
rs12115454 A
------------ 
rs6552828 A
rs11715829 C
rs684736 T
rs10921078 A
rs6090314 A
rs10500872 C
rs1956197 C
rs824205 T
rs7933007 C
rs12896790 G
rs4952535 A
rs2053896 A
rs2198009 G
rs2030398 A
rs738353 T
rs353625 C
rs10452621 T

score => 19 for expected above avg. vo2max gain. remember that g=c and a=t."

one day computers will tell us all what jobs we should have and how we should spend our free time.  until then we will keep floundering and wasting time doing what we like. 

 

a test I took in th 70's suggested I might like being a farmer or a bus driver.  I can't believe it didn't add in ditch digger.  That would be closer to what I ended up doing. 

This ain't computers.  This is your genome.

So I tracked down the paper, found data for 20 of the 21 SNPs, and... my score is a whopping 11. Huh. So, from this perspective, I guess am not "born to run". Oh well.

Actually, I believe your conclusion is false.

You were born to run.  You just weren't born to be an elite level runner.  Not many are, most likely.

That being said, it would be far more useful to see how having a specific combination will respond to differing types of training.  In other words, would a person with a given combination of the SNPs identified respond better to more miles and less intensity, or vice versa.

Of course, just knowing the genes is one thing; there's also the epigenetic effect as well, which could draw on environmental and life factors at that point, and are more difficult to track down at the moment.

Actually, I believe your conclusion is false.

 

You were born to run.  You just weren't born to be an elite level runner.

Oh, I was being a bit sarcastic. But I was surprised. I seem to have below average adaptability to training. Now I'm not the world's fastest guy, but I am a sub-3 marathoner, and beyond that I can run more BQs in a year than either most really fast people or most people who run lots of marathons. But then, there are a lot more than those 21 genes involved here.

That being said, it would be far more useful to see how having a specific combination will respond to differing types of training.  In other words, would a person with a given combination of the SNPs identified respond better to more miles and less intensity, or vice versa.

Yes, that would be great. In principle one could get that by looking at what the genes containing those SNPs are thought to actually do -- I haven't looked at it in that much detail yet. I doubt that at present I'll get much insight on how to bias my training, but that day is probably not far away.

a genome justs sits there.  it needs someone or something to deduce things.  computers will use data from our genome to lord over us.  computers are even more powerful than biologists, geneticists, and smart alec doctors.  we'll let them do it because the computers will be hidden inside Care Bear (TM) robotic bodies and we'll not want to defy them. 

Nah.  You can determine your SNP pattern without a computer.  Just takes a bunch of pipetting.

computers are even more powerful than smart alec doctors. 

Ha

Nah.  You can determine your SNP pattern without a computer.  Just takes a bunch of pipetting.

Tell me about it.  I found coloured pens helped...blue, yellow and green were preferable.

... my score is a whopping 11. Huh. So, from this perspective, I guess am not "born to run". Oh well.

So I was lamenting my lack of runner's genes to my wife, and compounded upon this was the knee MRI results I got back indicating thinned cartilage and reduced joint space, so I don't have runner's knees either.

She told me "stop whining -- you certainly have runner's mouth".