The primary goal of behavioural genetics is to investigate the nature and origins of
individual differences in behaviour. only a few of which are outlined below.
Animal studies Investigators in animal behaviour genetics can carefully control for environmental factors and can experimentally manipulate genetic variants, allowing for a degree of causal inference that is not available in studies on
human behavioural genetics. In animal research
selection experiments have often been employed. For example, laboratory
house mice have been bred for
open-field behaviour,
thermoregulatory nesting, and voluntary
wheel-running behaviour. A range of methods in these designs are covered on those pages. Behavioural geneticists using
model organisms employ a range of
molecular techniques to alter, insert, or delete genes. These techniques include
knockouts,
floxing,
gene knockdown, or
genome editing using methods like
CRISPR-Cas9. These techniques allow behavioural geneticists different levels of control in the model organism's genome, to evaluate the molecular,
physiological, or behavioural outcome of genetic changes. Animals commonly used as model organisms in behavioural genetics include mice,
zebra fish,
Drosophila, and the
nematode species
C. elegans. Machine learning and A.I. developments are allowing researchers to design experiments that are able to manage the complexity and large data sets generated, allowing for increasingly complex behavioural experiments.
Human studies Some research designs used in behavioural genetic research are variations on
family designs (also known as
pedigree designs), including
twin studies and
adoption studies.
Twin and family studies showing an
inheritance pattern consistent with
autosomal dominant transmission. Behavioural geneticists have used
pedigree studies to investigate the genetic and environmental basis of behaviour. The basic intuition of the twin study is that
monozygotic twins share 100% of their genome and
dizygotic twins share, on average, 50% of their segregating genome. Thus, differences between the two members of a monozygotic twin pair can only be due to differences in their environment, whereas dizygotic twins will differ from one another due to genes in addition to the environment. Under this simplistic model, if dizygotic twins differ more than monozygotic twins it can only be attributable to genetic influences. An important assumption of the twin model is the
equal environment assumption that monozygotic twins have the same shared environmental experiences as dizygotic twins. If, for example, monozygotic twins tend to have more similar experiences than dizygotic twins—and these experiences themselves are not genetically mediated through
gene-environment correlation mechanisms—then monozygotic twins will tend to be more similar to one another than dizygotic twins for reasons that have nothing to do with genes. While this assumption should be kept in mind when interpreting the results of twin studies, research tends to support the equal environment assumption. Twin studies of monozygotic and dizygotic twins use a biometrical formulation to describe the influences on twin similarity and to infer heritability. The formulation rests on the basic observation that the
variance in a phenotype is due to two sources, genes and environment. More formally, Var(P) = g + (g \times \epsilon) + \epsilon, where P is the phenotype, g is the effect of genes, \epsilon is the effect of the environment, and (g \times \epsilon) is a
gene by environment interaction. The g term can be expanded to include
additive (a^2),
dominance (d^2), and
epistatic (i^2) genetic effects. Similarly, the environmental term \epsilon can be expanded to include shared environment (c^2) and non-shared environment (e^2), which includes any
measurement error. Dropping the gene by environment interaction for simplicity (typical in twin studies) and fully decomposing the g and \epsilon terms, we now have Var(P) = (a^2 + d^2 + i^2) + (c^2 + e^2) . Twin research then models the similarity in monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins using simplified forms of this decomposition, shown in the table.
Measured genetic variants The
Human Genome Project has allowed scientists to directly
genotype the
sequence of human
DNA nucleotides. Once genotyped,
genetic variants can be tested for
association with a behavioural
phenotype, such as
mental disorder,
cognitive ability,
personality, and so on. •
Candidate Genes. One popular approach has been to test for association
candidate genes with behavioural phenotypes, where the candidate gene is selected based on some
a priori theory about biological mechanisms involved in the manifestation of a behavioural trait or phenotype. and there has been concern raised that the
false positive rate in this type of research is high. •
Genome-wide association studies In
genome-wide association studies, researchers test the relationship of millions of
genetic polymorphisms with behavioural phenotypes across the
genome. Genetic variants identified to be associated with some trait or disease through GWAS may be used to improve disease risk predictions. However, the genetic variants identified through GWAS of common genetic variants are most likely to have a modest effect on disease risk or development of a given trait. This is different from the strong genetic contribution seen in
Mendelian conditions or for some rare variants that may have a larger effect on disease. •
SNP heritability and co-heritability Recently, researchers have begun to use similarity between classically unrelated people at their measured
single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to estimate
genetic variation or covariation that is tagged by SNPs, using
mixed effects models implemented in
software such as
genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA). Intuitively, SNP heritability increases to the degree that phenotypic similarity is predicted by genetic similarity at measured SNPs, and is expected to be lower than the true
narrow-sense heritability to the degree that measured SNPs fail to tag (typically rare) causal variants. The value of this method is that it is an independent way to estimate heritability that does not require the same assumptions as those in twin and family studies, and that it gives insight into the
allelic frequency spectrum of the causal variants underlying trait variation.
Quasi-experimental designs Some behavioural genetic designs are useful not to understand genetic influences on behaviour, but to
control for genetic influences to test environmentally-mediated influences on behaviour. Such behavioural genetic designs may be considered a subset of
natural experiments,
quasi-experiments that attempt to take advantage of naturally occurring situations that mimic true
experiments by providing some
control over an
independent variable. Natural experiments can be particularly useful when
experiments are infeasible, due to practical or
ethical limitations. Thus, observing a
correlation between an environmental risk factor and a health outcome is not necessarily evidence for environmental influence on the health outcome. Similarly, in
observational studies of parent-child behavioural transmission, for example, it is impossible to know if the transmission is due to genetic or environmental influences, due to the problem of passive
gene–environment correlation. but a larger effect of rearing environment on
harder drug use. Other behavioural genetic designs include discordant twin studies, and
Mendelian randomization. == General findings ==