4.8 Article

Predicting educational achievement from DNA

Journal

MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 267-272

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/mp.2016.107

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. UK Medical Research Council [MR/M021475/1]
  2. US National Institutes of Health [HD044454, HD059215]
  3. MRC/IoPPN Excellence Award
  4. EU Framework Programme 7 [602768]
  5. Medical Research Council studentship
  6. Medical Research Council Advanced Investigator award [295366]
  7. MRC [MR/M021475/1, G19/2, MR/N015746/1, G0500079, G0901245] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [MR/N015746/1, MR/M021475/1, G0500079, G0901245, 1427589, 1667469, G19/2] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A genome-wide polygenic score (GPS), derived from a 2013 genome-wide association study (N = 127,000), explained 2% of the variance in total years of education (EduYears). In a follow-up study (N = 329,000), a new EduYears GPS explains up to 4%. Here, we tested the association between this latest EduYears GPS and educational achievement scores at ages 7, 12 and 16 in an independent sample of 5825 UK individuals. We found that EduYears GPS explained greater amounts of variance in educational achievement over time, up to 9% at age 16, accounting for 15% of the heritable variance. This is the strongest GPS prediction to date for quantitative behavioral traits. Individuals in the highest and lowest GPS septiles differed by a whole school grade at age 16. Furthermore, EduYears GPS was associated with general cognitive ability (similar to 3.5%) and family socioeconomic status (similar to 7%). There was no evidence of an interaction between EduYears GPS and family socioeconomic status on educational achievement or on general cognitive ability. These results are a harbinger of future widespread use of GPS to predict genetic risk and resilience in the social and behavioral sciences.

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