4.8 Article

Effects of the peer metagenomic environment on smoking behavior

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1806901116

Keywords

sociogenomics; adolescent smoking; social genetic effects

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [P01-HD31921]
  2. NICHD [R01 HD073342, R01 HD 060726]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent scholarship suggests that the genomes of those around us affect our own phenotypes. Much of the empirical evidence for such metagenomic effects comes from animal studies, where the socio-genetic environment can be easily manipulated. Among humans, it is more difficult to identify such effects given the non-random distribution of genes and environments. Here we leverage the as-if-random distribution of grade-mates' genomes conditional on school-level variation in a nationally representative sample. Specifically, we evaluate whether one's peers' genetic propensity to smoke affects one's own smoking behavior net of one's own genotype. Results show that peer genetic propensity to smoke has a substantial effect on an individual's smoking outcome. This is true not only when the peer group includes direct friends, and therefore where the individual plays an active role in shaping the metagenomic context but also when the peer group includes all grade-mates and thus in cases where the individual does not select the metagenomic environment. We explore these effects further and show that a small minority with high genetic risk to smoke ('bad apples') can greatly affect the smoking behavior of an entire grade. The methodology used in this paper offers a potential solution to many of the challenges inherent in estimating peer effects in nonexperimental settings and can be utilized to study a wide range of outcomes with a genetic basis. On a policy level, our results suggest that efforts to reduce adolescent smoking should take into account metagenomic effects, especially bad apples, within social networks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available