Misclassification of heritable mortality undermines estimates of intrinsic life span heritability
Hamilton, F. W.
Show abstract
In a recent article in Science, Shenhar et al. report that human life span heritability reaches [~]55% after removing "extrinsic" mortality, roughly seven-fold higher than recent large pedigree estimates. This conclusion rests on classifying deaths from infections and accidents as environmental noise independent of genetics. This premise is biologically untenable: susceptibility to severe infection is substantially heritable, with adoptee studies showing relative risks exceeding 5 for infection death when a biological parent died of infection. By encoding the assumption that extrinsic mortality is non-genetic directly into their Gompertz-Makeham model, removing it necessarily inflates heritability estimates. This creates selection bias rather than correcting for confounding and explains the contradiction with both pedigree studies and GWAS findings. The proposed heritability estimate is therefore not the true heritability of any population, past or present.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Trans-Omic Mendelian Randomization Study of Parental Lifespan Uncovers Novel Aging Biology and Drug Candidates for Human Healthspan Extension 93%
- Longevity Relatives Count score defines heritable longevity carriers and suggest case improvement in genetic studies 92%
- Genetic associations for two biological age measures point to distinct aging phenotypes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A mathematical model that predicts human biological age from physiological traits identifies environmental and genetic factors that influence aging 93%
- Automated, high-dimensional evaluation of physiological aging and resilience in outbred mice 92%
- Quantification of the pace of biological aging in humans through a blood test: The DunedinPoAm DNA methylation algorithm 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.