I wonder if this relates to the
RCCX Genetic Module Theory? The RCCX region of the human genome is a largely unexplored area. Some info is found in
this post.
Though some historical context is necessary when trying to looking at possible genetic factors behind chronic diseases:
The rationale for undertaking the expensive human genome project (the project to map out the human genome) was that it was believed genes would explain all nearly human diseases. Whether it was heart diseases, cancers, neurological illnesses or immunological disorders, it was thought at the time that genetic factors were the likely cause.
The human genome project was finally completed in 2003. Unfortunately after its completion, it was soon realized that genetic factors were NOT the long sought after causal explanation of all the chronic diseases that afflict humanity.
Billions had been spent on the human genome project in the hope of understanding why diseases appear, but from the disease perspective, the human genome project turned out to be an expensive fiasco. Of course, it's great that we do have the human genome mapped (or at least mostly mapped), but it has taught us very little about the causes of chronic disease. It has turned out that genes are NOT the main causal explanation for chronic diseases, although genes may play a role.
So it is back to the drawing board, in terms of trying to figure out what causes chronic diseases.
Prof Paul Ewald often talks about the human genome project's failure to uncover chronic disease etiology. He has been trying to get people to understand that we need to be looking at other possible causal factors. In his view, it is
germs, not genes, which are the likely main driving cause of chronic disease.
This makes sense, because most people were healthy before they caught their chronic disease. So something must have changed in their body to cause this disease. In science, every effect has a cause. The acquisition of a persistent pathogen in the body may well be that factor which turns a healthy body into a diseased one, says Ewald.
Prof Ewald argues that evolution is such a powerful force, than any disease-causing gene which reduces an animal's chances of reproduction would have been eliminated from the gene pool millions of years ago.
The only exceptions are bad genes which have some compensating positive benefit. He gives the example of sickle cell disease genes, which are common in Africa. These are bad genes which do lead to disease. But the same genes provide a very important compensating benefit: they protect against malaria, a common infection in Africa.
