• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Genetic SNPs Poll

What Genetic SNPs have you tested positive for?


  • Total voters
    29

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Adding your data in one cell at a time for each gene I look at would be very time consuming and impractical.
:wide-eyed: It sure is! :wide-eyed: I have trouble even reading my data, much less copying it snp by snp. :p

While I'm disappointed not to be included in the magnificent Gigantor Excel Spreadsheet of Genetic Doom, I understand that it is currently impossible.

Thanks for your impressive work collating and correlating our genetic data.
 

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
According to my results from Scion/Cellf, 70.6% of the general population have the VDR Taq (rs731236) variation. This CDC page gives a breakdown by race for Americans and has links for variation frequency by age and sex.

Thanks greatly for that :) .. someone had told me it was one of the rarer mutations.. seems they must of given me the wrong info.

I can see from Valenijn's graphs that fairly equal between the two groups with the ME group only having one extra double copy person of it (thanks a lot Valenijn, its good when I cross out one thought). I still wonder thou if its causing lithium issues in people with double copies of it... even maybe some healthy people may have lithium deficiency.
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Not much ... the only differences would be on the X chromosome, and it's not one that I end up looking at often. Basically the guys are just homozygous for everything :lol:

But women seem more likely to get ME (with the same gene mixes as men who don't?) so might that confound things? It might be best to do separate charts for men and women, especially as Valentijn clearly doesn't have enough to do...;)
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Thanks greatly for that :) .. someone had told me it was one of the rarer mutations.. seems they must of given me the wrong info.

I can see from Valenijn's graphs that fairly equal between the two groups with the ME group only having one extra double copy person of it (thanks a lot Valenijn, its good when I cross out one thought). I still wonder thou if its causing lithium issues in people with double copies of it... even maybe some healthy people may have lithium deficiency.

Do we know if lithium plays a significant role in human biochemistry?

I found this page which says we don't really know.
 

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
Do we know if lithium plays a significant role in human biochemistry?

I found this page which says we don't really know.

I cant remember now what I read about it but I do know that research has shown that taking lithium.. can raise white blood count. And that is exactly what it did with me when I took it for my deficiency, it double my count and now its in a good range.
.......

On that link you just gave it appears it also affects the immune system in other ways.. from the link see the part I bolded
The Effects of Lithium on the Immune System (V.S. Gallicchio)

In humans lithium therapy may lead to an increase in immunoglobulin synthesis by B-lymphocytes. However, the results of in vitro experiments and animal testing are contradictory.
Lithium stimulates the proliferation of T-lymphocytes and appears to increase the phagocytic activity of macrophages, but only at doses higher than those prescribed for medical treatment.
Experimental evidence suggests that lithium can increase cytokine production. This has been confirmed in the case of interleukin-2. Moreover, lithium potentiates tumor necrosis factor-mediated cytotoxicity. In high doses, lithium inhibits cyclic AMP (cAMP), which leads to an increase in the synthesis of interferon products.
It appears that lithium influences the immune system in part by reducing intracellular concentrations of cAMP and inositol phosphate.
Because of the high doses involved, the potential usefulness of lithium in the treatment of inflammatory and auto-immune diseases is still unclear. However, because it can increase interleukin-2 production, as well as potentiate killer cell activity, high-dose lithium has been used in the treatment of various cancers. Recent evidence also indicates that, by inhibiting T-suppressor cells lithium can reduce the severity of graft-versus-host reactions following transplants.

Of great importance is the potential use of lithium in the treatment of immune deficiency syndromes such as AIDS. In vitro experiments have shown that lithium can lead to a more robust immune response in patients with AIDS. The direct antiviral effects of lithium, e.g. in herpes virus infections, are already being utilized in clinical practice.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,786
But women seem more likely to get ME (with the same gene mixes as men who don't?) so might that confound things? It might be best to do separate charts for men and women, especially as Valentijn clearly doesn't have enough to do...;)
Yeah, there's got to be a sex-related factor in there somewhere. But for purposes of purely genetic comparison, men should work just fine as controls . Also I'm quite fond of my first 6 listed controls, as they all definitely don't have ME/CFS or even pain or fatigue issues :D
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Yeah, there's got to be a sex-related factor in there somewhere. But for purposes of purely genetic comparison, men should work just fine as controls . Also I'm quite fond of my first 6 listed controls, as they all definitely don't have ME/CFS or even pain or fatigue issues :D

...don't forget to control for ethnicity too, when you get round to your PhD thesis! :D
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Going by this poll, I'm really in with the In crowd. ;) I have all the mutations that more than 50% of us have except the CBS C699T. I have the CBS A360A mutation instead. I also don't have any of the less than 50% mutations except the CBS A360A.

:whistle: "I'm in with the In crowd. I go where the In crowd goes. I'm in with the In crowd. I know what the In crowd knows." :whistle:

I know, I'm dating myself. If I could figure out how to embed audio of this 70's favorite for the edification of the young'uns, I would.
 
Messages
2,565
Location
US
A red box indicates prevalence of that genotype is 1-2.5% in the general population, orange is 2.5-5%, and yellow is 5-10%.

Could you explain this further? In an old post of yours, I believe you said when analyzemygenes runs with the 1% database, it is finding mutations that less than 1 in 10000 people have. I may have interpreted your post wrong. Why doesn't this 1% figure mean 1 in 100 people?

And I was looking at dbSNP and (if I am not interpreting it wrong) they said the frequency number they post is the middle number, not the lowest number. So is analyzemygenes also using the middle number and not lowest?

And further can someone confirm that middle number means heterozygous mutation frequency? I'm trying to piece this together. If we are examining a specific SNP of a gene, and 1 in 4000 people have a heterozygous mutation and 1 in 10000 people have the homozygous mutation, then it is 1% for homozygous, but analyzemygenes will put 2.5%.

Edited to add: I am further confused because of mutations which are only in a certain ethic group. Say 2% of that ethnic group has a mutation but 0% of caucasians and 0% of every other ethnic group. I believe the number reported by these sites will say 2% which doesn't take into account that the first ethnic group has a low population.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,786
Could you explain this further? In an old post of yours, I believe you said when analyzemygenes runs with the 1% database, it is finding mutations that less than 1 in 10000 people have. I may have interpreted your post wrong. Why doesn't this 1% figure mean 1 in 100 people?
The 1% file is looking at SNPs with a prevalence of 1% (0.01) or less. Homozygous results returned from that database would have a prevalence of 0.01 squared (0.01 x 0.01). That works out to 0.01% (0.0001), or 1 in 10,000.

If allele prevalence is 10%, then the homozygous genotype prevalence is 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01, or 1%. So "rare" mutations listed above have a much higher allele prevalence than the 1% in the rare gene analysis program - going up to 31.6% allele rate for homozygous mutations to be at 10% or less, and going up to 5.3% allele rate for heterozygous mutations to be at 10% or less.

So this isn't looking at super duper rare mutations (that's what the rare genes analysis program does), but rather looking for relatively rare genotypes shared by ME/CFS patients when compared to controls. That way trends across a gene (or multiple genes with a similar function) can be spotted, instead of just identical very rare SNPs shared by multiple patients.
And I was looking at dbSNP and (if I am not interpreting it wrong) they said the frequency number they post is the middle number, not the lowest number. So is analyzemygenes also using the middle number and not lowest?
Both dbSNP and the rare genes analysis program use 1000 Genomes as the data source for minor allele frequency. Hence they should be the same, unless dbSNP hasn't gotten the most recent update from 1000 Genomes.
And further can someone confirm that middle number means heterozygous mutation frequency? I'm trying to piece this together. If we are examining a specific SNP of a gene, and 1 in 4000 people have a heterozygous mutation and 1 in 10000 people have the homozygous mutation, then it is 1% for homozygous, but analyzemygenes will put 2.5%.
Analyzymygenes is indicating minor allele frequency (MAF). Genotype frequency can be calculated from the MAF:
Homozygous = MAF x MAF
Heterozygous = 2 x (1 - MAF) x MAF
Edited to add: I am further confused because of mutations which are only in a certain ethic group. Say 2% of that ethnic group has a mutation but 0% of caucasians and 0% of every other ethnic group. I believe the number reported by these sites will say 2% which doesn't take into account that the first ethnic group has a low population.
The frequencies given are across all populations. Ethnic rates are available, but much less relevant, in my opinion. Genes function as they function, regardless of ethnicity - there may be some variations due to interactions with other SNPs which are more or less common in that group, but it's still coming down to the genes. Is an SNP with 25% prevalence in general, but 5% prevalence in Caucasians going to be relevant to causing a fairly rare disease? Probably not, hence me not giving a damn if it's rare in a tiny and insular sample of people which isn't even properly representative of Europeans :D Using data from a specific ethnicity would also be arbitrarily exclusionary toward non-Europeans, and I far prefer an inclusive approach.
 
Messages
2,565
Location
US
The 1% file is looking at SNPs with a prevalence of 1% (0.01) or less. Homozygous results returned from that database would have a prevalence of 0.01 squared (0.01 x 0.01). That works out to 0.01% (0.0001), or 1 in 10,000.

Prevalence was confusing. So analyzemygenes looks at the 1000 Genes database for MAF of .01 (or less) or .1 (or less) and ignores higher. So if someone runs the program with 1% and they are homozygous that means 1 in 10,000 people share it (or less). If they are heterozygous that is about 1 in 50? (2 * .99 * .01 = 0.0198)

So if analyzemygenes says 2% that's 0.02 MAF. So 1 in 2500 people have the homozygous and around 1 in 25 have heterozygous? This does not seem possible to me but it may be because it's hard to imagine this for every SNP that contributes to one condition or disease.
 

maddietod

Senior Member
Messages
2,859
I looked for information about my homozygous MAO gene. If I understand the chart correctly, almost 70% of the European population has my TT variant. Is this right?

http://snpedia.com/index.php/Rs6323

[I can't figure out how to embed a link in this new software]
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,786
Prevalence was confusing. So analyzemygenes looks at the 1000 Genes database for MAF of .01 (or less) or .1 (or less) and ignores higher. So if someone runs the program with 1% and they are homozygous that means 1 in 10,000 people share it (or less). If they are heterozygous that is about 1 in 50? (2 * .99 * .01 = 0.0198)

So if analyzemygenes says 2% that's 0.02 MAF. So 1 in 2500 people have the homozygous and around 1 in 25 have heterozygous? This does not seem possible to me but it may be because it's hard to imagine this for every SNP that contributes to one condition or disease.

Yup, those calculations all look correct. Heterozygous mutations are MUCH more common than minor allele homozygous homozygous, especially as the rare allele gets rarer. A way to check your calculations is to figure out the frequency of the major allele (1-MAF) x (1-MAF), and add together both homozygous results plus the heterozygous results, and check that it equals 1.0 (100%).

So if MAF is 0.02 (2%), then being homozygous for the minor allele is 0.0004 (0.04%).
Heterozygous is 0.0392 (3.92%).
Homozygous for the major allele is 0.9604 (96.04%).
So the total is 96.04% + 3.92% + 0.04% = 100.00%.

The actual prevalence of genotypes (such as is shown on dbSNP near the bottom of the page for each SNP) tend to stick to this distribution quite closely. For example, if you go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs10776792 and look at the ESP_Cohort_Population subgroup (4550 alleles), the MAF is listed as 0.021, which should result in 0.0441% with AA for that group, 4.1118% with AG, and 95.8441% with GG. Actual distribution is 0.01% AA, 4.0% AG, and 96.0% GG, obviously with a bit of rounding in there somewhere :p
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,565
Location
US

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
My brain hurts! I'll leave the stats to you mathsy folks - my older brother got all the maths genes in my family. (Yes, I know it's not scientific but it certainly seems that way.)
 
Messages
2,565
Location
US
Sadly, it just gave me a headache. I don't understand a single thing on that page.

Find the many colored lines and find the second and third that say European. The middle column shows in different colors which alleles they have. The second European line says
0.0420.5000.0420.208 0.208
The key is at the top of that column. Each color meaning a different one (orange is 0/G, dark blue means G/G, etc).
The numbers are the percentages. Orange is 4.2%, the next is 5.0%, etc.
The key has 6 colors and that sample group had nobody with pink so that's why the empty space for 0.0%.