4.0 Article

An exploration of gene-environment interaction and asthma in a large sample of 5-year-old Dutch twins

期刊

TWIN RESEARCH AND HUMAN GENETICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 143-149

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1375/twin.11.2.143

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH058799] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH58799-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A consistent finding from twin studies is that the environment shared by family members does not contribute to the variation in susceptibility to asthma. At the same time, it is known that environmental risk factors that are shared by family members are associated with the liability for asthma. We hypothesize that the absence of a main effect of shared environmental factors in twin studies can be explained by gene-environment interaction, that is, that the effect of an environmental factor shared by family members depends on the genotype of the individual. We explore this hypothesis by modeling the resemblance in asthma liability in twin pairs as a function of various environmental risk factors and test for gene-environment interaction. Asthma data were obtained by parental report for nearly 12,000 5-year-old twin pairs. A series of environmental risk factors was examined: birth cohort, gestational age, time spent in incubator, breastfeeding, maternal educational level, maternal smoking during pregnancy, current smoking of parents, having older siblings, and amount of child care outside home. Results revealed that being a boy, born in the 1990s, premature birth, longer incubator time, and child care outside home increased the risk for asthma. With the exception of premature birth, however, none of these factors modified the genetic effects on asthma. In very premature children shared environmental influences were important. In children born after a gestation of 32 weeks or more only genetic factors were important to explain familial resemblance for asthma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据