HUMAN PHYSIQUE & 'POPULATIONS' STUDIES
(here's a link to deCODE's population-based results) The method is able to home-in on gene-variants that may exist in a population - with all the hereditary factors at play.
EXAMPLES OF GENE-VARIANTS IN POPULATION STUDIES (FREQ UPDATED)
1)deCODE
2)genes implicated in blood-pressure found in Amish
3)protein implicated in early-onset coronary-disease (six related gene-variants transmitted between generations)
4)obesity gene-variants
Matching drugs (proteins usually) to gene-variants is a very precise science. Breeding genes is fairly arbitrary in terms of hereditary variables (as previously noted). By comparison, comparing samples over several generations in large populations invites highly sophisticated data-bases.
If something as complicated as the nervous-system breaks down there are likely to be multifacted 'causes' - the nervous-system is partially self-regulating. There are also bound to be environmental influences. Basically, precision in these types of severe degenerative disorders involves taking account of all possible causes. This is something population-sampling would tend to do.
VISUAL HEREDITARY DATA
As noted, genes are distressingly similar & scientists are increasingly asking where are the species differences? These populations results point to genes being arbitrary or ambiguous 'data' unless matched to 'physique' & more particularly human populations. The one is 'virtual' & the other is real.
One has to recognize that if, say, you're breeding dogs or horses you're not 'breeding genes'. You're breeding characteristics. Obviously genes are expressed as a consequence, but the data is so super-precise (as exmple 3 above, say) that doesn't help a lot!
VIRUS CAPSID-PROTEINS
Active proteins are easier to 'work' with being that they ARE super-specific. What research is able to do using new advanced imaging is view the visual hereditary factors in complicated protein-structures, relate different proteins & class viruses which otherwise would not be related. This makes the point that 'visual' information is what really counts - it's subtle in a way that genes aren't, at least visually.
