Correction to ‘Genetics of biologically based psychological differences’

Abstract

Open AccessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Sallis Hannah, Davey Smith George and Munafò Marcus R. 2018Correction to ‘Genetics of biologically based psychological differences’Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B3732018017320180173http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0173SectionOpen AccessCorrectionCorrection to ‘Genetics of biologically based psychological differences’ Hannah Sallis Hannah Sallis http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4793-6290 Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , George Davey Smith George Davey Smith Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Marcus R. Munafò Marcus R. Munafò Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Hannah Sallis Hannah Sallis http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4793-6290 Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , George Davey Smith George Davey Smith Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Marcus R. Munafò Marcus R. Munafò Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Published:23 April 2018https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0173This article corrects the followingReview ArticleGenetics of biologically based psychological differenceshttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0162 Hannah Sallis, George Davey Smith and Marcus R. Munafò volume 373issue 1744Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences26 February 2018Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B373, 20170162. (Published Online 26 February 2018) (doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0162)It has been brought to our attention that our article ‘Genetics of biologically based psychological differences’ contained some minor errors and ambiguities that we would like to correct. A list of corrections are as follows.In the Introduction (paragraph 2), sentence 2 should read: ‘Although there is no universally accepted framework of personality, the proposed factors (such as those suggested by Eysenck and in the five-factor model (FFM)) provide a good starting point when investigating the genetic architecture of these individual differences [4–7].’In Box 1 (paragraph 2), sentence 3 should read: ‘Estimates calculated according to these family-based models can be thought of as ‘true’ heritability.’In the same paragraph, sentence 6 should read: ‘These individuals are thus assumed to share a great deal of their environment, but if the equal environments assumption is violated this can impact on heritability estimates; for example, more similar treatment of identical (MZ) twins could lead to false inflation of heritability estimates.’In Box 1 (paragraph 3), sentence 1 should read: ‘Genome-wide methods estimate heritability using SNP-based approaches.’In the same paragraph, sentence 4 should read: ‘These approaches generally estimate heritability using unrelated individuals, which should minimize confounding due to shared environment, and follow the same experimental design as GWASs [26], but do not give an estimate of true narrow sense heritability because they do not include all additive genetic variance.’In Box 1 (paragraph 4), sentence 4 should read: ‘Any discrepancies between and the narrow sense heritability estimated from twin studies may be attributed to variation explained by rare variants or common variation not tagged by SNPs included on the current chip.’In section 2a (paragraph 1), sentence 6, we should refer to reference [16] not [13].In the same section, paragraph 3, sentence 2 should read ‘The authors, Vukasović & Bratko, find evidence for a heritable component to individual differences in personality, with heritability estimated at approximately 40%.’In section 2b (paragraph 1), sentence 6 should read: ‘These techniques use information on the correlation or linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure across the genome to estimate the SNP heritability of a trait from GWAS summary statistics (see Box 1 for a definition of ) [34].’In the same section, paragraph 1, sentence 9 should read ‘This approach appears to provide unbiased estimates of [14].’In table 1, the study by Power & Pleuss should be included: Power & Pleuss [35]NCDS0.150, s.e. = 0.084924In section 5 (paragraph 5), sentence 4 should read ‘This is likely due to favourable characteristics that are linked to some genetic vulnerability for the disorder in those who do not succumb to the outcome.’In section 6 (paragraph 2), sentence 1 should read: ‘Although there is ongoing discussion about the best model of individual differences in personality, the factor structures suggested are a useful starting point when investigating the genetic architecture of these traits [4–7].’While these amendments do not change the conclusions of our article, we are grateful for the opportunity to correct them. Previous Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsRelated articlesGenetics of biologically based psychological differences26 February 2018Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences This Issue05 June 2018Volume 373Issue 1748Discussion meeting issue ‘Frontiers in epigenetic chemical biology’ compiled and edited by A. Ganesan, Marianne G. Rots, Paola Arimondo and Akane Kawamura Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0173PubMed:29685970Published by:Royal SocietyPrint ISSN:0962-8436Online ISSN:1471-2970History: Published online23/04/2018Published in print05/06/2018 License:© 2018 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Citations and impact Subjectsbehaviour