Cited by 58Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyCognitive Abilities and TestingFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Heritability of Regional Brain Volumes in Large-Scale Neuroimaging and Genetic Studies

Open access
Zhao, Bingxin, Ibrahim, Joseph G, Li, Yun, Li, Tengfei, Wang, Yue, Shan, Yue, Zhu, Ziliang, Zhou, Fan +6 more·2019·Cerebral Cortex

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Brain genetics is an active research area. The degree to which genetic variants impact variations in brain structure and function remains largely unknown. We examined the heritability of regional brain volumes (P ~ 100) captured by single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in UK Biobank (n ~ 9000). We found that regional brain volumes are highly heritable in this study population and common genetic variants can explain up to 80% of their variabilities (median heritability 34.8%). We observed omnigenic impact across the genome and examined the enrichment of SNPs in active chromatin regions. Principal components derived from regional volume data are also highly heritable, but the amount of variance in brain volume explained by the component did not seem to be related to its heritability. Heritability estimates vary substantially across large-scale functional networks, exhibit a symmetric pattern across left and right hemispheres, and are consistent in females and males (correlation = 0.638). We repeated the main analysis in Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (n ~ 1100), Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (n ~ 600), and Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics (n ~ 500) datasets, which demonstrated that more stable estimates can be obtained from the UK Biobank.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhy157

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Given the heritability of brain structure and function, family structure should be specifically accounted for in analysis pipelines.

    “Given the heritability of brain structure and function32–34, family structure should be specifically accounted for in analysis pipelines, such as in permutation tests65.”

    From Data leakage inflates prediction performance in connectome-based machine learning models (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Abstract reports that regional brain volumes are highly heritable in the study population, supporting the brain-structure part of the cited premise. The paper groups those volume measures into functional networks, but does not establish the heritability of brain function itself. The recommendation about accounting for family structure is attached to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. R. L. Buckner, J. R. Andrews-Hanna, D. L. Schacter, The brain's default network, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124 (2008) 1-38.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, B., Ibrahim, J. G., Li, Y., Li, T., Wang, Y., Shan, Y., Zhu, Z., Zhou, F., Zhang, J., Huang, C., Liao, H., Yang, L., Thompson, P. M., & Zhu, H.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Imaging Genetics Center, Mark and Mary Stevens Institute for Neuroimaging & Informatics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2018-07-12
Volume
29
Issue
7
Pages
2904-2914
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2952810115
Cited by
58
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (MH086633, MH092335)
  • National Science Foundation (1357666, 1407655)
  • Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas
  • endowed Bao-Shan Jing Professorship in Diagnostic Imaging
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
heritability, regional brain volume, brain structure genetics, single nucleotide polymorphisms, functional brain networks, hemispheric lateralization, sex differences, UK Biobank, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort
MeSH terms
Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Organ Size, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Neuroimaging, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review