4.7 Article

The heritability of alcohol use disorders: a meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 1061-1072

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291714002165

关键词

Adoption study; alcohol use disorder; alcoholism; environment; genetics; meta-analysis; twin study

资金

  1. NIH [AA011408, AA017828, AA018333, DA026119, DA018673]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. To clarify the role of genetic and environmental risk factors in alcohol use disorders (AUDs), we performed a meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies and explored the impact of sex, assessment method (interview v. hospital/population records), and study design (twin v. adoption study) on heritability estimates. Method. The literature was searched for all unique twin and adoption studies of AUD and identified 12 twin and five adoption studies. The data were then reconstructed and analyzed using ordinal data full information maximum likelihood in the OpenMx program. Heterogeneity was tested with likelihood ratio tests by equating the parameters across studies. Results. There was no evidence for heterogeneity by study design, sex or assessment method. The best-fit estimate of the heritability of AUD was 0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.53], and the proportion of shared environmental variance was 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.16). Estimates of unique environmental proportions of variance differed significantly across studies. Conclusions. AUD is approximately 50% heritable. The multiple genetically informative studies of this syndrome have produced consistent results that support the validity of this heritability estimate, especially given the different potential methodological weaknesses of twin and adoption designs, and of assessments of AUD based on personal interviews v. official records. We also found evidence for modest shared environmental effects suggesting that environmental factors also contribute to the familial aggregation of AUDs.

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

4.7
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