Genome-wide association study identifies 48 common genetic variants associated with handedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Handedness, a consistent asymmetry in skill or use of the hands, has been studied extensively because of its relationship with language and the over-representation of left-handers in some neurodevelopmental disorders. Using data from the UK Biobank, 23andMe and 32 studies from the International Handedness Consortium, we conducted the world’s largest genome-wide association study of handedness (1,534,836 right-handed, 194,198 (11.0%) left-handed and 37,637 (2.1%) ambidextrous individuals). We found 41 genetic loci associated with left-handedness and seven associated with ambidexterity at genome-wide levels of significance (P < 5×10 −8 ). Tissue enrichment analysis implicated the central nervous system and brain tissues including the hippocampus and cerebrum in the etiology of left-handedness. Pathways including regulation of microtubules, neurogenesis, axonogenesis and hippocampus morphology were also highlighted. We found suggestive positive genetic correlations between being left-handed and some neuropsychiatric traits including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. SNP heritability analyses indicated that additive genetic effects of genotyped variants explained 5.9% (95% CI = 5.8% – 6.0%) of the underlying liability of being left-handed, while the narrow sense heritability was estimated at 12% (95% CI = 7.2% – 17.7%). Further, we show that genetic correlation between left-handedness and ambidexterity is low (r g = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.08 – 0.43) implying that these traits are largely influenced by different genetic mechanisms. In conclusion, our findings suggest that handedness, like many other complex traits is highly polygenic, and that the genetic variants that predispose to left-handedness may underlie part of the association with some psychiatric disorders that has been observed in multiple observational studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".