Why some human genes are more popular with researchers than others

September 18, 2018, Public Library of Science
Hot and cold regions of biology. Genes (dots) are mapped according to generic chemical and biological characteristics. Blue indicates cold regions, where genes are studied less frequently than anticipated under the assumption that every gene would be studied to the same extent. Credit: Thomas Stoeger

Historical bias is a key reason why biomedical researchers continue to study the same 10 percent of all human genes while ignoring many genes known to play roles in disease, according to a study publishing September 18 in the open access journal PLOS Biology, led by Thomas Stoeger and Luís Amaral of Northwestern University, and colleagues. This bias is bolstered by research funding mechanisms and social forces.

Recent studies from other labs have reported that researchers actively study only about 2,000 of the nearly 20,000 human protein-coding , so the researchers set out to find why. The researchers compiled 36 distinct resources describing various aspects of biomedical research and analyzed the large database for answers.

The team found that well-meaning policy interventions to promote exploratory or innovative research actually result primarily in additional work on the most established research topics—those genes first characterized in the 1980s and 1990s, before completion of the Human Genome Project. The researchers also discovered that postdoctoral fellows and Ph.D. students who focus on poorly characterized genes have a 50 percent lower chance of becoming an independent researcher.

"We discovered that current research on human genes does not reflect the medical importance of the genes," Stoeger said. "Many genes with a very strong relevance to human disease are still not studied. Instead, social forces and funding mechanisms reinforce a focus of present-day science on past research topics."

The researchers applied a systems approach to the data—which included chemical, physical, biological, historical and experimental data—to uncover underlying patterns. In addition to explaining why some genes are not studied, they also explain the extent to which an individual gene is studied. And they can do that for approximately 15,000 genes.

The Human Genome Project—the identification and mapping of all human genes, completed in 2003—promised to expand the scope of scientific study beyond the small group of genes scientists had studied since the 1980s. But the Northwestern researchers found that 30 percent of all genes have never been the focus of a scientific study and less than 10 percent of genes are the subject of more than 90 percent of published papers. And this despite the increasing availability of new techniques to study and characterize genes.

"Everything was supposed to change with the Human Genome Project, but everything stayed the same," said Amaral, the Erastus Otis Haven Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering and a co-author of the study. "Scientists keep going to the same place, studying the exact same genes. Should we be focusing all of our attention on this small group of genes?"

With researchers focused on just 2,000 human genes, the biology encoded by the remaining 18,000 genes remains largely uncharacterized. Some of these genes, the researchers note, include an understudied breast cancer gene cluster and genes connected to lung cancer that could be at least as important as the well-studied genes.

"The bias to study the exact same is very high," Amaral said. "The entire system is fighting the very purpose of the agencies and scientific knowledge which is to broaden the set of things we study and understand. We need to make a concerted effort to incentivize the study of other genes important to human health."

Looking forward, the Northwestern team is developing a public resource that could help identify understudied genes that have the potential to be of critical importance to specific diseases. The resource includes information on any extraordinary chemical property, whether a gene is highly active in a specific tissue and whether there is a strong link to a disease.

Explore further: Team reveals that human genome could contain up to 20 percent fewer genes

More information: Stoeger T, Gerlach M, Morimoto RI, Nunes Amaral LA (2018) Large-scale investigation of the reasons why potentially important genes are ignored. PLoS Biol 16(9): e2006643. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006643

Related Stories

Team reveals that human genome could contain up to 20 percent fewer genes

August 31, 2018
A new study led by the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) reveals that up to 20 percent of genes classified as coding (those that produce the proteins that are the building blocks of all living things) may not ...

New breast cancer targets

May 4, 2018
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 150 genetic variations associated with increased risk for breast cancer. Most of these variants are not located in protein-coding gene regions but are assumed ...

Mapping the genetic controllers in heart disease

July 10, 2018
Researchers have developed a 3-D map of the gene interactions that play a key role in cardiovascular disease, a study in eLife reports.

Altered gene regulation is more widespread in cancer than expected

July 10, 2018
A large-scale study provides new insights into the mechanisms that can lead to cancer. It can happen when genes mutate, but cancer also can occur when the genetic regions involved in regulating gene expression change. In ...

Estimating Alzheimer's disease causative genes by an evolutionary medicine approach

June 27, 2017
Alzheimer's disease patients are increasing with the aging of the world's population, becoming a huge health care and social burden. To find the cause of various diseases, in recent years, scientists have focused within the ...

Recommended for you

Scientists identify method to study resilience to pain

December 14, 2018
Scientists at the Yale School of Medicine and Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System have successfully demonstrated that it is possible to pinpoint genes that contribute to inter-individual differences in pain.

CRISPR joins battle of the bulge, fights obesity without edits to genome

December 13, 2018
A weighty new study shows that CRISPR therapies can cut fat without cutting DNA. In a paper published Dec. 13, 2018, in the journal Science, UC San Francisco researchers describe how a modified version of CRISPR was used ...

Noncoding mutations contribute to autism risk

December 13, 2018
A whole-genome sequencing study of nearly 2,000 families has implicated mutations in 'promoter regions' of the genome—regions that precede the start of a gene—in autism. The study, which appears in the December 14 issue ...

New method for studying ALS more effectively

December 13, 2018
The neurodegenerative disease ALS causes motor neuron death and paralysis. However, long before the cells die, they lose contact with muscles as their axons atrophy. Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have now ...

Paternal grandfather's high access to food may indicate higher mortality risk in grandsons

December 12, 2018
A paternal grandfather's access to food during his childhood is associated with mortality risk, especially cancer mortality, in his grandson, shows a large three-generational study from Stockholm University. The reason might ...

New genetic study could lead to better treatment of severe asthma

December 12, 2018
The largest-ever genetic study of people with moderate-to-severe asthma has revealed new insights into the underlying causes of the disease which could help improve its diagnosis and treatment.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jaeherys
not rated yet Sep 18, 2018
After glancing over the paper I'm left with the feeling of "obviously" and "in an ideal world". I am a cell/molecular biologist and working on establishing myself in bioinformatics. In a perfect world where time is not a problem and money infinite, students would be free to study many more things. One of the single most important factors is reward/time. To characterize a gene you need a decent amount of equipment, many years, and a lot of luck. For graduate students, this is a very bad investment. Moreover, characterizing a protein-coding gene is relatively boring. On top of that, if a protein functions in a novel or poorly studied way, figuring out how it works may be extremely challenging or currently impossible. When taking into consideration grant funding, gambling on an uncharacterized protein is not a good option until much later in your career, assuming you have established a steady money supply.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.