{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021798365122615803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036330608537693005, 'mean_word_length': 5.482352941176471, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary: What is the case for candidate gene approaches in the era of high-throughput genomics? A response to Border and Keller (2017).

Border and Keller argue that candidate gene approaches are outdated and out-of-touch with the current understanding of the genetic architecture of complex behavioral traits and should be abandoned in favor of unbiased, genome-wide approaches. Border and Keller further suggest that a candidate gene should not be selected for in-depth investigation unless identified by a well-powered genome-wide association study (GWAS). An alternative perspective is offered that candidate approaches can be sensible for developmental and deep-phenotyping studies aimed at elucidating particular biological pathways responsible for the emergence of psychological phenotypes, and that candidates should not necessarily be expected to be confirmed by, or solely selected based on, GWAS. Both candidate and whole genome strategies have limitations, and each approach is useful and valid in the quest to identify the elusive genetic architecture of complex behavioral phenotypes.