Could physical attributes be genetically-linked to heritable health issues?

Genetics trump looks. It’s all in the DNA, and while physical attributes are hereditary as well it is going to be the underlying genetics that predispose one to certain conditions, not the physical appearance. I look more like my dad but inherited my mothers kidney condition.

Depends on whether the attributes/characteristics (physical or otherwise) are traceable to the same chromosome or not. If they’re on the same chromosome, they are very likely to be linked. If not, then it is less likely, but you could still wind up with that attribute because your other parent could have had the same gene.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Of each pair, one is inherited from the father and one from the mother.

To go back to the OP’s question, keep in mind that alcoholism and more vague notions such as “looks”, each most likely involves several different genes, maybe even located on different chromosomes, so the possibilities can be quite complicated indeed.

Genetic testing is the only way to know if a specific gene has been inherited. Alcoholism is linked to genetics but it’s no smoking gun. Genetics and health outcome is an early science and should be taken seriously but with a grain of salt at the same time.There are many reasons why it happens and genes are only a small part of the equation.

I think it’s pot luck. I have inherited a genetic disorder from my father’s side of the family but in physical appearance I inherited my looks 100% from my mum’s side of the family. My sister, who inherited her looks from my dad’s side, escaped the genetic disorder, as did my brother who looks more like me.

On a lark, I tried on my late Fathers hearing aids. They fit perfectly! Apparently I inherited his ear canals or something.

What @2davidc8 said.

@2davidc8 Yes! Your second response was what I was trying to get at. Looks involve more than one attribute. If the attributes are located on multiple chromosomes—can that correlate to multiple shared chromosomes? Almost like treating the physical attributes as phenotypes to find how the genotypes (health issues) are passed down?

It’s like Russian roulette. You might miss the bullet. But the more chromosomes you share with that person, the more times you pull the trigger, the higher the chances to hit that bullet.

But this is assuming that physical attributes are distributed evenly among the 23 chromosomes. It’s been forever since I’ve taken a genetics class. Someone care to tell me why this is flawed?

@downtide Interesting!

@fluthernutter Take something complicated, like autism. Most likely, many genes are involved here, and they are probably located on different chromosomes. Which is why autism is nowadays sometimes called a “spectrum” disease. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that 10 different genes are involved, and that to get a “full blown” case of autism you need to inherit all 10 defective genes. But if you inherit only 4 “bad” ones and the other 6 are “good”, you may get a milder case of autism.
Even something like nearsightedness probably involves more than one gene. Things can get pretty complicated, so they have the appearance of a crapshoot, which is what one responder above called it.
In @downtide‘s case, it appears that she calls “looks” is inherited independently from the “genetic disorder” that she has, because her brother looks like her yet has escaped the disorder. And even what she calls “looks” is made up of many different things. She may “look like” her brother, but she probably doesn’t look 100% like her brother. She may share many of the same genes that make up “looks” with her brother but not 100% of them.

Oh, by the way, for further reading, Google “Law of Segregation” and “Law of Independent Assortment”.

Well, the fairer your skin, the higher your risk for skin cancer. If you are black, you are more likely to have sickle cell desease. Most of us can pick out a person with down syndrom.

So in short I Am tempted to say yes.

Sure. We know there is some relationship. Redheads are much more susceptible to melanomas.
I predict that as our knowledge about genetics improves we will find many other “appearance traits” that are related to health issues. The markers might be something we never expected like pupillary distance or ear lobe shape.

Not always. I thought it was possible I might have a bad gene, but the docs scoffed at the thought. I insisted on getting tested for it. Surprise, I get a letter recommending genetic counseling.

@LuckyGuy When there is strong evidence that there is a relationship between traits, it is likely that the genes responsible are located on the same chromosome and near each other, relatively speaking. Thus they are more likely to be inherited together.

@2davidc8 I’m a he, not a she ;-)

I just thought of another example. Sickle cell anemia. It is inherited and only occurs in people with very dark skin. It is virtually unheard of in the white population.
Does that count as a physical attribute?

Getting genetic testing is surprisingly cheap at the moment. I have a feeling that the information will become invaluable. Consequently excuses will probably be found to make getting that information more expensive.

@LuckyGuy Don’t quote me, but I think no. If I recall correctly, sickle cell anemia is caused by mutation, and the gene is recessive; ordinarily it would be bred out of the population. However, because it confers an advantage for people infected with malaria (they experience much less severe symptoms), it persists in parts of the world where malaria is very common.

Ah – this from Wikipedia:

“In the USA, where there is no endemic malaria, the prevalence of sickle-cell anaemia among blacks is lower (about 0.25%) than in West Africa (about 4.0%) and is falling. Without endemic malaria, the sickle cell mutation is purely disadvantageous and will tend to be selected out of the affected population via natural selection.”

So, it does look like the gene will eventually become very rare without the advantage conferred by malaria.

@dappled_leaves I did a quick search on wiki. “Sickle-cell disease (SCD), or sickle-cell anaemia (SCA) or drepanocytosis, is a hereditary blood disorder, characterized by red blood cells that assume an abnormal, rigid, sickle shape. Sickling decreases the cells’ flexibility and results in a risk of various life-threatening complications. This sickling occurs because of a mutation in the haemoglobin gene. Individuals with one copy of the mutant gene produce a mixture of both normal and abnormal haemoglobin. This is an example of codominance.”.

@LuckyGuy Yes, but that explains nothing about why it is so prevalent in populations of African descent. You’ll see that I also quoted a (more relevant) passage from the same article.

@downtide So sorry. My bad. :-(
Now back to the original question. There are two other subtleties that I would like to mention. One is dominant/recessive/codominance that @LuckyGuy touched upon above. This is too complicated to discuss here, but those who are interested are urged to Google these topics.
The other is that just because you have inherited a “bad” gene doesn’t necessarily mean you will get the disease. Take the BRCA2 gene that’s associated with breast cancer, for example. The current thinking is that this gene codes for a protein that’s responsible for gene repair. So, if this gene is mutated, the protein that it is supposed to help make will be defective and can’t perform its repair function. Then if you are in need of repair, and the protein can’t help, you are more likely to get breast cancer. But what if this part of your DNA never gets hit by a mutagen, carcinogen, virus, or radiaton and is never in need of repair? You could luck out and sail right through life just fine even with a defective BRCA2 gene.
Prostate cancer is another example. Why is prostate cancer so aggressive in some men, but in others not so much? Probably because not only is there more than one kind of prostate cancer, but also because several different genes are involved in each.
See how complicated things can get?