ADAM33 polymorphisms and susceptibility to allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Several polymorphisms in a disintegrin and metalloproteinase 33 (ADAM33) have been implicated in susceptibility to allergic rhinitis (AR), but the...     

Rapid Increase in Neural Conduction Time in the Adult Human Auditory Brainstem Following Sudden Unilateral Deafness

Individuals with sudden unilateral deafness offer a unique opportunity to study plasticity of the binaural auditory system in adult humans. Stimulation of the intact ear results in increased activity in the auditory cortex. However, there are no reports of changes at sub-cortical levels in humans. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate changes in sub-cortical activity immediately before and after the onset of surgically induced unilateral deafness in adult humans. Click-evoked auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) to stimulation of the healthy ear were recorded from ten adults during the course of translabyrinthine surgery for the removal of a unilateral acoustic neuroma. This surgical technique always results in abrupt deafferentation of the affected ear. The results revealed a rapid (within minutes) reduction in latency of wave V (mean pre = 6.55 ms; mean post = 6.15 ms; p < 0.001). A latency reduction was also observed for wave III (mean pre = 4.40 ms; mean post = 4.13 ms; p < 0.001). These reductions in response latency are consistent with functional changes including disinhibition or/and more rapid intra-cellular signalling affecting binaurally sensitive neurons in the central auditory system. The results are highly relevant for improved understanding of putative physiological mechanisms underlying perceptual disorders such as tinnitus and hyperacusis.     

Population Genetics Identifies Challenges in Analyzing Rare Variants

Geneticists have, for years, understood the nature of genome‐wide association studies using common genomic variants. Recently, however, focus has shifted to the analysis of rare variants. This presents potential problems for researchers, as rare variants do not always behave in the same way common variants do, sometimes rendering decades of solid intuition moot. In this paper, we present examples of the differences between common and rare variants. We show why one must be significantly more careful about the origin of rare variants, and how failing to do so can lead to highly inflated type I error. We then explain how to best avoid such concerns with careful understanding and study design. Additionally, we demonstrate that a seemingly low error rate in next‐generation sequencing can dramatically impact the false‐positive rate for rare variants. This is due to the fact that rare variants are, by definition, seen infrequently, making it hard to distinguish between errors and real variants. Compounding this problem is the fact that the proportion of errors is likely to get worse, not better, with increasing sample size. One cannot simply scale their way up in order to solve this problem. Understanding these potential pitfalls is a key step in successfully identifying true associations between rare variants and diseases.