4.5 Article

Genetic and environmental effects on body mass index during adolescence: a prospective study among Finnish twins

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 559-567

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2009.51

关键词

body mass index; adolescent; twins; genetics; growth and development; sex-specific effects

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [R37 AA012502-04, AA-12502, R37 AA012502-03, R01 AA012502, R01 AA009203-05, R37 AA012502-05, R37 AA012502-09, R37 AA012502-02, R37 AA012502-01, R01 AA009203, R37 AA012502, R37 AA012502-07, R37 AA012502-06, R37 AA012502-08] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To study genetic and environmental factors affecting body mass index (BMI) and BMI phenotypic correlations across adolescence. Design: Prospective, population-based, twin cohort study. Participants and methods: We used twin modeling in 2413 monozygotic and same-sex and opposite-sex dizygotic Finnish twin pairs born in 1983-1987 and assessed using self-report questionnaires at 11-12, 14 and 17 years of age. Results: Heritability of BMI was estimated to be 0.58-0.69 among 11-12- and 14-year-old boys and girls, 0.83 among 17-year-old boys and 0.74 among 17-year-old girls. Common environmental effects shared by siblings were 0.15-0.24 among 11-12- and 14-year-old boys and girls but no longer discernible at 17 years of age. Unique environmental effects were 0.15-0.23. Additive genetic factors explained 90-96% of the BMI phenotypic correlations across adolescence, whereas unique environmental factors explained the rest. Common environment had no effect on BMI phenotypic correlations. Conclusions: The genetic contribution to BMI is strong during adolescence, and it mainly explains BMI phenotypic correlations across adolescence. Common environmental factors have an effect on BMI during early adolescence, but that effect disappears by late adolescence. International Journal of Obesity (2009) 33, 559-567; doi:10.1038/ijo.2009.51; published online 31 March 2009

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

4.5
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